United States v. Marte-Roble

Case: 25-50591 Document: 48-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50591 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 12, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Francisco Marte-Roble, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:24-CR-3152-1 ______________________________ Before Clement, Southwick, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Francisco Marte-Roble filed this appeal following his conviction of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, arguing for the first time that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50591 Document: 48-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2026

No. 25-50591

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The government moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file an appellate brief.

Marte-Roble’s argument is foreclosed by precedent. 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” (cleaned up)). Summary affirmance is fitting where, as here, the government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969) (per curiam).

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.