United States v. Cuevas-Aranda

── United States v. Cuevas-Aranda ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-50735 Document: 54-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50735 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 1, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Orlando Cuevas-Aranda, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:25-CR-588-1 ______________________________ Before Davis, Wilson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Orlando Cuevas-Aranda appeals the sentence imposed upon his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, arguing that the statutory sentencing 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. Although Cuevas-Aranda takes no _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50735 Document: 54-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 No. 25-50735 position on the motion for summary affirmance, he acknowledges his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and raises the issue to preserve it for further review. Cuevas-Aranda is correct that his 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 therefore appropriate. See 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 district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2