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 No. 06-50070 Clerk Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE OCTAVIO VIGIL-PERALES, also known as Eduardo E. Lopez, also known as Jose Octavio Perales, also known as Jesus Ruiz Arredondo, also known as Octavio Mesa Garza, also known as Eleazar Escalante Obregon, also known as Jose Obregon, also known as Jo
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 No. 06-50070 Clerk Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE OCTAVIO VIGIL-PERALES, also known as Eduardo E. Lopez, also known as Jose Octavio Perales, also known as Jesus Ruiz Arredondo, also known as Octavio Mesa Garza, also known as Eleazar Escalante Obregon, also known as Jose Obregon, also known as Jos..
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
No. 06-50070 Clerk
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE OCTAVIO VIGIL-PERALES, also known as Eduardo E.
Lopez, also known as Jose Octavio Perales, also known
as Jesus Ruiz Arredondo, also known as Octavio Mesa Garza,
also known as Eleazar Escalante Obregon, also known as Jose
Obregon, also known as Jose Escalante Obregon, also known as
Gustavo Perales, also known as Jose Perales, also known as
Jose Perales Vigil,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CR-145-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Octavio
Vigil-Perales 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.