Full Opinion

Case: 26-50316 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals _____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-50316 October 26, 2026 consolidated with Thomas B. Plunkett, III No. 26-50317 Clerk Summary Calendar _____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus German Nahun Andino-Ortega, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 2:25-CR-85-1, 2:21-CR-781-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Southwick, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * German Andino-Ortega appeals following his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States, as well as the revocation of his term of supervised release in a previous case. Regarding his new conviction, he contends, for the first time on appeal, that the enhancement in 8 U.S.C. * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-50316 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2026 26-50316 c/w No. 26-50317 § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He does not raise any challenge to the revoca- tion judgment. The government moves for summary affirmance or alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. Even though Andino-Ortega takes no position on the motion for summary affirmance, he acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The parties are correct that Andino-Ortega’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 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 is AFFIRMED. 2