Background
Cristhian Perdomo-Hernandez appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit following his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The appeal also followed the revocation of his term of supervised release in a previous case. The appeals came from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, in district court numbers 2:24-CR-1238-1 and 2:22-CR-1706-1.
The appellate caption identifies No. 26-50332, United States of America v. Cristhian Perdomo-Hernandez, as consolidated with No. 26-50333, United States of America v. Christian Alexander Perdomo-Hernandez. The per curiam opinion’s discussion and disposition concern Cristhian Perdomo-Hernandez’s appeal. The case was considered on the Fifth Circuit’s summary calendar.
Regarding his conviction, Perdomo-Hernandez argued that the enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He did not challenge his revocation judgment. The government moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. Perdomo-Hernandez took no position on the motion for summary affirmance, but acknowledged that his constitutional argument was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit agreed with the parties that Perdomo-Hernandez’s argument was foreclosed. It cited United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553–54 (5th Cir. 2019), and Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 838 (2024). The court quoted Erlinger’s explanation that Almendarez-Torres “persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction.” The opinion therefore rejected the challenge to the § 1326(b) enhancement on the basis of controlling precedent, without announcing a new constitutional rule.
The court concluded that summary affirmance was appropriate under Groendyke Transportation, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). It granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance, denied the government’s alternative motion for an extension of time, and affirmed the judgments of the district court. The opinion did not describe the extension motion as moot or supply any other reason for its denial beyond the stated disposition.
The affirmance covered the judgments before the court, including the conviction and sentence and the supervised-release revocation judgment. Perdomo-Hernandez had not challenged the revocation judgment, and the court provided no separate analysis of it. The opinion also did not state that the constitutional challenge was being preserved for further review.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit granted summary affirmance because the challenge to the § 1326(b) enhancement was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres and Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The court described Almendarez-Torres, through Erlinger, as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction.
- The district court’s judgments were affirmed, and the government’s alternative request for an extension of time was denied.
- Perdomo-Hernandez did not challenge the revocation judgment, and the opinion supplied no separate revocation analysis.
Why It Matters
The disposition is a straightforward application of binding precedent rather than a new interpretation of § 1326(b). It shows the Fifth Circuit summarily affirming where both the governing Supreme Court authority and circuit precedent foreclose the appellant’s argument, and where the appellant acknowledges that obstacle.
The opinion is expressly not designated for publication under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5. Its reasoning is limited to the constitutional challenge presented; it does not create a broader rule concerning supervised-release revocations or characterize the denied extension motion as moot.