United States v. Rodriguez-Becerra

Case: 25-10369 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-10369

FILED August 7, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Bruno Rodriguez-Becerra,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:24-CR-282-1 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Bruno Rodriguez-Becerra 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 that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The Government has filed an unopposed motion Case: 25-10369 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2025

No. 25-10369 for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a merits brief.

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 AS MOOT, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.