United States v. Padilla-Saldana

── United States v. Padilla-Saldana ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 11, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-50764 Document: 50-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50764 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ May 11, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Eloy Padilla-Saldana, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-2954-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Eloy Padilla-Saldana 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 argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and the government moves summary affirmance _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50764 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 No. 25-50764 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 is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. 2