Filed: Apr. 15, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-40829 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EDIS MAURICIO YANEZ-REYES, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-97-CR-145-1 - - - - - - - - - - April 8, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Edis Mauricio Yanez-Reyes appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentencing for illegal r
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-40829 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EDIS MAURICIO YANEZ-REYES, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-97-CR-145-1 - - - - - - - - - - April 8, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Edis Mauricio Yanez-Reyes appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentencing for illegal re..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40829
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDIS MAURICIO YANEZ-REYES,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-97-CR-145-1
- - - - - - - - - -
April 8, 1998
Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Edis Mauricio Yanez-Reyes appeals his guilty-plea conviction
and sentencing for illegal reentry after deportation in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He argues that his conviction
and sentencing for violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is legally
invalid because his previous convictions were not alleged in the
indictment or proved at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. He also
argues that the sentencing court violated his right to due
process by determining that § 1326(b)(2) is merely a sentencing
enhancement of the offense delineated in § 1326(a) rather than a
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-40829
-2-
separate offense. These arguments are foreclosed by the United
States Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United
States, ___ U.S. ___,
1998 WL 126904, at *3, *8 and *10-15 (U.S.
Mar. 24, 1998).
AFFIRMED.