Filed: Sep. 08, 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 September 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41120 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LUIS GERARDO RANGEL-RANGEL, also known as Jose Alfredo Garcia-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-71-ALL - Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41120 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LUIS GERARDO RANGEL-RANGEL, also known as Jose Alfredo Garcia-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-71-ALL - Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges. P..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 8, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41120
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS GERARDO RANGEL-RANGEL, also known
as Jose Alfredo Garcia-Hernandez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:05-CR-71-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis Gerardo
Rangel-Rangel raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-
Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held
that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.