Case: 25-50165 Document: 50-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-50165 September 19, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Edgard Prince Inestroza-Padilla, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:24-CR-1701-1 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Edgard Prince Inestroza-Padilla 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 _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50165 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2025

No. 25-50165

unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a merits brief.

The parties are correct that the sole argument that Inestroza-Padilla raises on appeal is foreclosed. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553- (5th Cir. 2019); see also Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 838 (2024) (stating 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). Thus, 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.