Case: 25-50059 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2025

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

No. 25-50059 FILED September 11, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Francisco Javier Rodriguez-Contreras, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:24-CR-467-1 ______________________________ Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Francisco Javier Rodriguez-Contreras appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, he argues that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a), based on _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50059 Document: 49-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2025

No. 25-50059

facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While Rodriguez-Contreras acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief.

As Rodriguez-Contreras correctly 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)). Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” summary affirmance is appropriate.

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

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot.