Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Zarate-Rizo, 05-41108 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 05-41108 Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 05, 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 October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41108 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ELIAS ZARATE-RIZO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-992-ALL - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in
More
                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 October 5, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-41108
                        Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELIAS ZARATE-RIZO,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. 1:04-CR-992-ALL
                       --------------------

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Elias Zarate-Rizo

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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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