Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Flores-Guzman, 06-50413 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-50413 Visitors: 91
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. 06-50413 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE ANTONIO FLORES-GUZMAN, also known as Marcos Antonio Flores-Solis, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-2352 - Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges. PER C
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. 06-50413
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ANTONIO FLORES-GUZMAN, also known
as Marcos Antonio Flores-Solis,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                         --------------------
            Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for the Western District of Texas
                        USDC No. 3:05-CR-2352
                         --------------------

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Antonio

Flores-Guzman 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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