Filed: Apr. 12, 2006
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 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41255 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EMILIO RODRIGUEZ-LOPEZ, also known as Mario G. Perez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-168-ALL - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CU
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 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41255 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EMILIO RODRIGUEZ-LOPEZ, also known as Mario G. Perez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-168-ALL - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CUR..
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 12, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41255
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EMILIO RODRIGUEZ-LOPEZ, also
known as Mario G. Perez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:05-CR-168-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Emilio Rodriguez-
Lopez 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.