United States v. Chox-Gonzalez

── United States v. Chox-Gonzalez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 14, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-11110 Document: 52-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED May 14, 2026 No. 25-11110 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Victor Chox-Gonzalez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:25-CR-48-1 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Victor Chox-Gonzalez appeals his sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He argues that the sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b)(1) is unconstitutional because it allows a defendant to be sentenced above the statutory maximum of § 1326(a) based on a prior felony conviction that was _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.  Case: 25-11110 Document: 52-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2026 No. 25-11110 not alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. As Chox-Gonzalez concedes, this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). 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)). The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief. Because summary affirmance is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. 2