United States v. Chavez-Fernandez

Opinion

Case: 25-11036 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED

No. 25-11036 April 16, 2026 Summary Calendar

Lyle W. Cayce

____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Teodoro Chavez-Fernandez,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:25-CR-31-1

______________________________

Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Teodoro Chavez-Fernandez appeals the 27-month prison term imposed for his conviction for illegally reentering the United States. He argues that the district court was obligated, under Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), to address his nonfrivolous arguments for a downward variance. Reviewing this forfeited argument for plain error, we conclude,

_____________________

*

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

Case: 25-11036 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2026

No. 25-11036

based on the record, that there was no error, plain or otherwise. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 343-45, 356, 358-59; United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 584, 586-87 & nn.3-6 (5th Cir. 2021).

In addition, Chavez-Fernandez argues that the district court erred by imposing a sentence above the two-year statutory maximum in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He correctly concedes that the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez- Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226 (1998). 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)).

Although Chavez-Fernandez’s appeal can be resolved without further briefing, summary affirmance is not appropriate as to the first issue. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969); United States v. Bailey, 924 F.3d 1289, 1290 (5th Cir. 2019). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. The alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits is DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.