United States v. Miranda-De La Hoya

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 26, 2025
• Docket: 25-10590
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-10590 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. 25-10590 FILED November 26, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Carlos Miranda-De La Hoya,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:24-CR-14-1 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Plaintiff-Appellant Carlos Miranda-De La Hoya appeals following his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), arguing for the first time on appeal that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He concedes this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and the

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-10590 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/26/2025

No. 25-10590

Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. The parties are correct that the argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Summary affirmance is therefore appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the 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.