Full Opinion

Case: 26-50332 Document: 57-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-50332 November 6, 2026 Summary Calendar Thomas B. Plunkett, III ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Cristhian Perdomo-Hernandez, Defendant—Appellant, consolidated with _____________ No. 26-50333 _____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Christian Alexander Perdomo-Hernandez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Case: 26-50332 Document: 57-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 USDC Nos. 2:24-CR-1238-1, 2:22-CR-1706-1 ______________________________ Before Willett, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Cristhian Perdomo-Hernandez 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 conviction, he argues that the enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He does not challenge his revocation judgment. The Government has moved for summary affirmance, or alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. Perdomo-Hernandez takes no position on the motion for summary affirmance, but he acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The parties are correct that Perdomo-Hernandez’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 Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 2