Filed: Jul. 13, 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 July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41523 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JORGE ALBERTO GARCIA-MORALES, also known as Javier Barrientos, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-312-ALL - Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIA
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41523 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JORGE ALBERTO GARCIA-MORALES, also known as Javier Barrientos, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-312-ALL - Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, 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 July 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41523
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JORGE ALBERTO GARCIA-MORALES, also
known as Javier Barrientos,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:05-CR-312-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge Alberto
Garcia-Morales 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.