United States v. Salcedo-Cano

Case: 25-50573 Document: 62-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50573 consolidated with FILED No. 25-50574 February 24, 2026 _____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jaime Arturo Salcedo-Cano, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 2:24-CR-2802-1, 2:23-CR-3279-1 ______________________________ Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Jaime Arturo Salcedo-Cano appeals following (1) his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2) for illegal reentry into the United States and (2) the revocation of his term of supervised release and imposition of a sentence following revocation. He does not raise any challenge in his _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50573 Document: 62-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2026

25-50573 c/w No. 25-50574 revocation appeal. In his other appeal, he argues that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. Salcedo-Cano concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and 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 its brief.

As he concedes, Salcedo-Cano’s 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 thus appropriate. 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.