United States v. Valle-Ramirez

Case: 25-50135 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________ United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 25-50135

FILED July 16, 2025

Summary Calendar

____________ Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Antonio Valle-Ramirez,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:24-CR-501-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Richman, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Antonio Valle-Ramirez appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, arguing that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and the Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, Case: 25-50135 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2025

No. 25-50135 alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. Valle-Ramirez takes no position on the motion.

As Valle-Ramirez concedes, 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 thus 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 is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.