United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10148

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Herminio Perales-Perez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-246-1

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Herminio Perales-Perez appeals his guilty plea conviction for illegal 

reentry and the 70-month prison term and three-year supervised release term 

that followed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). For the following reasons, we 

AFFIRM.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 26, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10148 Document: 00515616336 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2020
No. 20-10148

2

We reject Perales-Perez’s assertion that the sentence imposed is 

substantively unreasonable because his argument is purely conclusory, 

unsupported by record citations, and essentially unbriefed. Although 

Perales-Perez contends that the sentence and the reasons given for it fail to 

consider and give significant weight to mitigating factors, he does not identify 

any such factors. We will not search the record to find support for PeralesPerez’s counseled brief. See Nicholas Acoustics & Specialty Co. v. H & M 

Const. Co., 695 F.2d 839, 846–47 (5th Cir. 1983); see also Fed. R. App. P.

28(a)(8)(A). “Inadequately briefed issues are deemed abandoned.” United 

States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 244 (5th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. 

Cothran, 302 F.3d 279, 286 n.7 (5th Cir. 2002); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 

222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). Similarly, Perales-Perez’s one-line contention 

that the district court relied solely, and thus improperly, on his criminal 

history is deemed abandoned because it is conclusory and is merely 

mentioned in passing without being developed into an argument. See Stevens, 

487 F.3d at 242 n.1; Cothran, 302 F.3d at 286 n.7. We do not liberally 

construe a counseled brief. Woodfox v. Cain, 609 F.3d 774, 792 (5th Cir. 

2010). 

Perales-Perez also contends that it was error to sentence him to a term 

of imprisonment greater than two years and a term of supervised release 

longer than one year for a violation of § 1326. He states that this issue raises 

subsidiary issues, the first being whether the statutory enhancement 

provisions in § 1326(b) are unconstitutional because Congress unequivocally 

intended the enhancements to be sentencing factors, not elements of separate 

offenses. The second subsidiary issue is whether his guilty plea was 

involuntary and violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 because he 

was not admonished that the prior felony provision of § 1326(b)(1) stated an 

essential offense element that he had the right to have the government prove, 

and a jury find, beyond a reasonable doubt. Perales-Perez concedes that any 

Case: 20-10148 Document: 00515616336 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2020
No. 20-10148

3

relief in connection with these issues is foreclosed under Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226–27 (1998). He nevertheless raises them

to preserve them for further review. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10148 Document: 00515616336 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/26/2020