United States v. Fernandez-Fuentes

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 25-50352
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-50352 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED November 25, 2025 No. 25-50352 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Juan Fernandez-Fuentes,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:24-CR-37-1 ______________________________

Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Juan Fernandez-Fuentes appeals his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He argues for the first time on appeal that the enhancement of his sentence under § 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 concedes that

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50352 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/25/2025

No. 25-50352

this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a merits brief. Fernandez- Fuentes takes no position on the motion for summary affirmance. The parties are correct that the sole argument Fernandez-Fuentes 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) (stating 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). Thus, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.