United States v. Rodriguez-Padilla

Case: 25-50828 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-50828 July 15, 2026 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Daniel Rodriguez-Padilla, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:25-CR-1062-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Southwick, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Daniel Rodriguez-Padilla appeals his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

He maintains that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it treats a prior con- viction that increases the statutory maximum as a sentencing factor, rather than as an element of the offense.

The government moves for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an Case: 25-50828 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2026

No. 25-50828 extension of time to file its brief. Rodriguez-Padilla takes no position on the motion but concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).

Rodriguez-Padilla correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed.

See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553–54 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Erlin- ger 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 is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.