United States v. Garcia-Zamora

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 26, 2025
• Docket: 25-50443
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-50443 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/26/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50443 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ November 26, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Pablo Garcia-Zamora,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:24-CR-11-1 ______________________________

Before Richman, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Pablo Garcia-Zamora appeals his sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b), arguing the enhancement of his sentence under § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it is based on facts not alleged in the indictment and either admitted or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50443 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/26/2025

No. 25-50443

extension of time in which to file a brief. While Garcia-Zamora takes no position on summary affirmance, he acknowledges his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). Garcia-Zamora is correct that his argument 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 thus 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, its alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.