United States v. Martinez-Loyola

── United States v. Martinez-Loyola ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-50640 Document: 52-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50640 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ May 7, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Daniel Martinez-Loyola, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:25-CR-464-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Daniel Martinez-Loyola appeals his sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after having been removed in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez- _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.  Case: 25-50640 Document: 52-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 No. 25-50640 Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and that he raises this issue just to preserve it for further review. The government has moved without opposition for summary affirmance, or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief. The parties are correct that Martinez-Loyola’s sole argument 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) (explaining that Almendarez-Torres “persists as a narrow exception permit- ting 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 to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. 2