United States v. Duran-Carbajal

Case: 25-50447 Document: 48-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2026

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

No. 25-50447 FILED February 5, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jaime Duran-Carbajal, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:25-CR-70-1 ______________________________ Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Jaime Duran-Carbajal appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50447 Document: 48-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2026

No. 25-50447 by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief.

While Duran-Carbajal takes no position on the motion for summary affirmance, he acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez- Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review.

The parties are correct that the 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)). Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” summary affirmance is appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.