Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Martinez-Flores, 06-50018 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-50018 Visitors: 6
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. 06-50018 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-FLORES, also known as Raul Torres-Lopez, also known as Raul Cipriano Torres-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-317 - Before KING, GARWOOD, an
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. 06-50018
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-FLORES, also known as Raul
Torres-Lopez, also known as Raul Cipriano Torres-Lopez,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                       USDC No. 2:04-CR-317
                       --------------------

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alejandro

Martinez-Flores 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer