United States v. Pazos-Montes
This text of United States v. Pazos-Montes (United States v. Pazos-Montes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case: 25-10198 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2025
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit
FILED No. 25-10198 July 29, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Omar Alonso Pazos-Montes,
Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:23-CR-308-1 ______________________________
Before Haynes, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Omar Alonso Pazos-Montes 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 that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The Government
_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-10198 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2025
No. 25-10198
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); 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 motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED AS MOOT, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Pazos-Montes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pazos-montes-ca5-2025.