United States v. Ambriz-Tovar

── United States v. Ambriz-Tovar ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 22, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-50852 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50852 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ May 22, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Mario Alberto Ambriz-Tovar, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:25-CR-322-1 ______________________________ Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Mario Alberto Ambriz-Tovar appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b), arguing for the first time that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief. Ambriz-Tovar takes no position on the _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50852 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2026 No. 25-50852 motion for summary affirmance, but he acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. The parties are correct that Ambriz-Tovar’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 permitting 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, its alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2