United States v. Almeida-Ponce

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 25-50349
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-50348 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ No. 25-50348 United States Court of Appeals consolidated with Fifth Circuit

No. 25-50349 FILED Summary Calendar November 20, 2025 _____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Hugo Almeida-Ponce,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:24-CR-341-1, 4:24-CR-329-1 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Hugo Almeida-Ponce appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), as well as the revocation of his supervised release in a previous case. Regarding his conviction, Almeida-Ponce argues for the first time on appeal that the statutory sentencing enhancement in

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50348 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2025

25-50348 c/w No. 25-50349

§ 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it is based on facts not alleged in the indictment and neither admitted nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He does not raise any issue related to the revocation. Almeida-Ponce concedes that his only argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The Government moves for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a merits brief. Almeida- Ponce takes no position on the motion for summary affirmance. The parties are correct that the sole argument Almeida-Ponce raises on appeal 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, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot, and the judgment of conviction and the order of revocation are AFFIRMED.