United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez

Case: 25-50702 Document: 44-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2026

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

No. 25-50702 FILED February 24, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Ricardo Hernandez-Hernandez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:25-CR-177-1 ______________________________ Before Davis, Wilson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Ricardo Hernandez-Hernandez appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), arguing that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. Hernandez-Hernandez takes no position on _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50702 Document: 44-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2026

No. 25-50702 the motion for summary affirmance but concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).

The parties are correct that the argument 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 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.