Filed: Aug. 18, 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 August 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-50261 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SANTIAGO RUIZ-MONTOYA, also known as Alfonso Rivera-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-1971 - Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-50261 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SANTIAGO RUIZ-MONTOYA, also known as Alfonso Rivera-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-1971 - Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 17, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50261
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SANTIAGO RUIZ-MONTOYA, also known as
Alfonso Rivera-Martinez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-1971
--------------------
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Santiago Ruiz-
Montoya 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.