United States v. Leyva-Arranaga

Case: 25-10674 Document: 54-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED March 9, 2026 No. 25-10674 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Miguel Angel Leyva-Arranaga, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:23-CR-394-1 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Miguel Angel Leyva-Arranaga appeals following his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), asserting that the sentence enhancement provision of § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. The Government moves for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time in which to file a brief.

Leyva-Arranaga does not oppose the Government’s motion and correctly _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-10674 Document: 54-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2026

No. 25-10674 concedes that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). 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)). Thus, 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 to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.