Filed: Dec. 14, 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 December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-51137 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PEDRO ESQUIVEL-BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-823-ALL - Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the
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 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-51137 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PEDRO ESQUIVEL-BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-823-ALL - Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the J..
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 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51137
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PEDRO ESQUIVEL-BAUTISTA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-823-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Pedro Esquivel-
Bautista 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.