Filed: Dec. 17, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-50606 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE LUIS ROLDAN-GIL, also known as Jose Roldan-Gil, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-203-ALL-DB - Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-50606 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE LUIS ROLDAN-GIL, also known as Jose Roldan-Gil, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-203-ALL-DB - Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. P..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50606
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE LUIS ROLDAN-GIL, also known
as Jose Roldan-Gil,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-203-ALL-DB
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Luis Roldan-
Gil raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.
United States,
523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior
conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and
not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for
summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district
court is 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.