Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Ramos-Villalobos, 06-40538 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-40538 Visitors: 26
Filed: Nov. 09, 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 November 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-40538 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus VICTOR RAMOS-VILLALOBOS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-781-ALL - Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a Cri
More
                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                November 9, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 06-40538
                        Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VICTOR RAMOS-VILLALOBOS,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
            Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 1:05-CR-781-ALL
                        --------------------

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Victor Ramos-

Villalobos 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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