Filed: Apr. 15, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-50836 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus OSCAR NOE ACOSTA-PALACIOS, also known as Oscar Palacios, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-97-CR-66-ALL - - - - - - - - - - April 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Oscar Noe Acosta-Palacios argues that his sentence for ill
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-50836 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus OSCAR NOE ACOSTA-PALACIOS, also known as Oscar Palacios, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-97-CR-66-ALL - - - - - - - - - - April 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Oscar Noe Acosta-Palacios argues that his sentence for ille..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50836
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OSCAR NOE ACOSTA-PALACIOS,
also known as Oscar Palacios,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-97-CR-66-ALL
- - - - - - - - - -
April 10, 1998
Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Oscar Noe Acosta-Palacios argues that his sentence for
illegal reentry following deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b) violates principles of due process because the
indictment did not allege his prior felony conviction as an
element of the offense. This argument is precluded by the
Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
___ U.S. ___, 1998 WL 126904, at *3, *8 (U.S. Mar. 24, 1998).
AFFIRMED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
