United States v. Medina-Hernandez

── United States v. Medina-Hernandez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 15, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-11223 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-11223 Summary Calendar FILED May 15, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Yobani Medina-Hernandez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:25-CR-151-1 ______________________________ Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Yobani Medina-Hernandez appeals following his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation, arguing that the sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. Medina-Hernandez concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-11223 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 No. 25-11223 seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file its brief. The parties are correct that Medina-Hernandez’s 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 thus 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 extension of time is DENIED as moot, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2