Case: 25-50463 Document: 50-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50463 consolidated with FILED No. 25-50464 December 12, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce _____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Henry Raul Soriano-Triminio, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:25-CR-19-1, 4:25-CR-6-1 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Henry Raul Soriano-Triminio appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), as well as the revocation of his supervised release in a previous case. Regarding his conviction, Soriano- _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50463 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2025

25-50463 c/w No. 25-50464 Triminio argues for the first time on appeal that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it is based on facts not alleged in the indictment and neither admitted nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He does not raise any issue related to the revocation.

Soriano-Triminio concedes that his only argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The Government moves for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a merits brief. Soriano-Triminio takes no position on the motion for summary affirmance.

The parties are correct that the sole argument Soriano-Triminio 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) (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 Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of conviction and the order of revocation are AFFIRMED.