United States v. Perez-Rodriguez

Case: 25-10915 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2026

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

No. 25-10915 FILED February 2, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Miguel Angel Perez-Rodriguez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:25-CR-39-1 ______________________________ Before Richman, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Miguel Angel Perez-Rodriguez appeals following his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). Because the indictment did not allege, and he did not admit to, a prior felony offense, he argues that he was not subject to the enhanced penalty provisions of § 1326(b) and the three-year term of _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-10915 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2026

No. 25-10915 supervised release he received. Perez-Rodriguez concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and he seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a merits brief. Perez-Rodriguez does not oppose the Government’s summary affirmance motion.

As Perez-Rodriguez concedes, the sole argument that he 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)). Therefore, summary affirmance is 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.