U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2026

United States v. Chapa-Castaneda

United States v. Chapa-Castaneda
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided March 17, 2026
United States v. Chapa-Castaneda

Opinion

Case: 25-50659 Document: 52-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-50659 March 17, 2026 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Efrain Chapa-Castaneda, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-3008-1 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Efrain Chapa-Castaneda appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b), arguing for the first time that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file an appellate brief. While Chapa-Castaneda _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50659 Document: 52-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2026

No. 25-50659 takes no position on the motion for summary affirmance, he acknowledges 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.

Chapa-Castaneda is correct that his 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 Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.