Filed: Jun. 11, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-41189 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANTONIO ARROYO-JUAREZ, also known as Rogelio Ortega-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-132-1 - June 7, 2001 Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Antonio Arroyo-Juarez (“Arroyo”) appeals his conviction for illegal reentry after deportat
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-41189 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANTONIO ARROYO-JUAREZ, also known as Rogelio Ortega-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-132-1 - June 7, 2001 Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Antonio Arroyo-Juarez (“Arroyo”) appeals his conviction for illegal reentry after deportati..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-41189
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO ARROYO-JUAREZ,
also known as Rogelio Ortega-Lopez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-00-CR-132-1
--------------------
June 7, 2001
Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Antonio Arroyo-Juarez (“Arroyo”) appeals his conviction for
illegal reentry after deportation, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
He contends that the Government failed to allege his prior
aggravated felony conviction in his indictment. He also contends
that the district court erred by “double counting” his aggravated
felony conviction to increase both his offense level and criminal
history score.
Arroyo concedes that his first contention in this appeal is
foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-41189
-2-
v. United States,
523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), and that he raises
the issue solely to preserve it for review by the Supreme Court.
Arroyo’s second contention is without merit. See United States
v. Hawkins,
69 F.3d 11, 14 (5th Cir. 1995). This court affirms
the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.