United States v. Herrera-Gonzalez

Case: 25-50600 Document: 62-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ United States Court of Appeals No. 25-50600 Fifth Circuit consolidated with FILED No. 25-50601 June 12, 2026 _____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Ronald Fabricio Herrera-Gonzalez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 2:25-CR-283-1, 2:24-CR-1071-1 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Ronald Fabricio Herrera-Gonzalez appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), as well as the revocation of his term of supervised release in a previous case. Regarding his conviction, he argues for the first time on appeal that the sentencing enhancement _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50600 Document: 62-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2026

25-50600 c/w No. 25-50601 provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He does not raise any challenge to his revocation judgment. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance asserting that Herrera-Gonzalez’s challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief. Although Herrera- Gonzalez takes no position on the motion for summary affirmance, he acknowledges his argument is foreclosed and raises the issue to preserve it for further review.

The parties are correct that Herrera-Gonzalez’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 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 judgments are AFFIRMED.