Case: 25-10511 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-10511 October 28, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Pedro Cesar Villalobos-Espinoza, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CR-266-1 ______________________________ Before Davis, Wilson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Pedro Cesar Villalobos-Espinoza appeals from his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), arguing that the district court unconstitutionally enhanced his sentence under § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction that was not charged in the indictment and either admitted by him or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-10511 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/28/2025

No. 25-10511

that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government has filed an 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 Villalobos- Espinoza raises on appeal 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) (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). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.