United States v. Villeda-Martinez

Case: 24-51014 Document: 48-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-51014

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ July 29, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Douglas Noe Villeda-Martinez,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:24-CR-1847-1 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Douglas Noe Villeda-Martinez appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), arguing for the first time on appeal that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He concedes this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez- Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and the Government has filed a Case: 24-51014 Document: 48-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2025

No. 24-51014 motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. Villeda-Martinez takes no position on the motion. The parties are correct that the argument is foreclosed. 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 therefore appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the 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.