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
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 CU..
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.