United States v. Pardo-Ramos

Case: 24-50799 Document: 51-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50799

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ September 18, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Jose Martin Pardo-Ramos,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-2417-1 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Jose Martin Pardo-Ramos appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), 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.

_____________________ Case: 24-50799 Document: 51-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2025

No. 24-50799

224 (1998), and the Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. As Pardo-Ramos 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.