United States v. Ramos-Bernhard

── United States v. Ramos-Bernhard ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-50643 Document: 54-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50643 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ May 27, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Gabriel Ramos-Bernhard, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:24-CR-3011-1 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Gabriel Ramos-Bernhard appeals the sentence imposed upon his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States, arguing that the sentencing enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He concedes that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and seeks to preserve the issue for possible further _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50643 Document: 54-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2026 No. 25-50643 review. The Government moves for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a merits brief. Ramos-Bernhard takes no position on the motion for summary affirmance. The parties are correct that the argument is foreclosed and that summary affirmance is appropriate. 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)); see generally Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. 2