United States v. Menocal-Lobo

Case: 25-50457 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED February 18, 2026 No. 25-50457 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Francisco Geovany Menocal-Lobo, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:24-CR-2623-1 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Francisco Geovany Menocal-Lobo appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Menocal-Lobo contends that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and seeks to _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50457 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2026

No. 25-50457 preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, a motion for an extension of time to file a merits brief. Menocal-Lobo does not take a position on the Government’s summary affirmance motion.

As Menocal-Lobo 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. 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.