Case: 24-50771 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50771 consolidated with FILED No. 24-50772 July 14, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce _____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Valentin Castonon-Renteria, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 2:23-CR-2803-1, 2:24-CR-396-1 ______________________________ Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Valentin Castonon-Renteria appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) as well as the revocation of a previously imposed term of supervised release, arguing for the first time on _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-50771 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2025

24-50771 c/w No. 24-50772 appeal that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He does not challenge the revocation judgment. The Government moves for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time in which to file a brief. Castonon-Renteria takes no position on the motion but concedes that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).

Because Castonon-Renteria correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, see United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 838 (2024) (explaining that Almendarez-Torres “persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), summary affirmance is appropriate.

See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgments are AFFIRMED.