Filed: Apr. 20, 2005
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 April 20, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-50745 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GILBERTO MUNOZ-DE LA CRUZ, also known as Mario Solis-Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-79-1 - Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* App
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 20, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-50745 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GILBERTO MUNOZ-DE LA CRUZ, also known as Mario Solis-Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-79-1 - Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appe..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 20, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50745
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GILBERTO MUNOZ-DE LA CRUZ, also known as Mario Solis-Ramirez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CR-79-1
--------------------
Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gilberto Munoz-
de la Cruz 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.