United States v. Cano-Quintero
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date FiledNovember 6, 2026
Docket26-50208
StatusUnpublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Case: 26-50208 Document: 50-1 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. 26-50208 November 6, 2026
Summary Calendar
Thomas B. Plunkett, III
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Agustin Cano-Quintero,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:25-CR-527-1
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Agustin Cano-Quintero appeals following his conviction and sentence
for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b),
arguing for the first time that the recidivism enhancement in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b) is unconstitutional. The Government has moved for summary
affirmance, or alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file an
appellate brief. In his brief, Cano-Quintero acknowledges that his argument
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 26-50208 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2026
No. 26-50208
is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United
States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and he now raises it on appeal to preserve it for
further review.
The parties are correct that Cano-Quintero’s argument is foreclosed
by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624,
625 (5th Cir. 2007); 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
AS MOOT, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2