United States v. Varela-Angel
This text of United States v. Varela-Angel (United States v. Varela-Angel) 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: 25-50001 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
No. 25-50001 FILED August 5, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jorge Armando Varela-Angel,
Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:24-CR-129-1 ______________________________
Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jorge Varela-Angel appeals following his conviction of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), contending for the first time on appeal that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He concedes that his theory is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The government has filed an unopposed motion for
_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50001 Document: 49-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2025
No. 25-50001
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 convic- tion” (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, and the judgment 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. Varela-Angel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-varela-angel-ca5-2025.