Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Hernandez-Orduna, 06-40848 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-40848 Visitors: 9
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. 06-40848 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GABRIEL HERNANDEZ-ORDUNA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-62 - Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a Crimina
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. 06-40848
                        Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GABRIEL HERNANDEZ-ORDUNA,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                        USDC No. 1:06-CR-62
                       --------------------

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gabriel

Hernandez-Orduna 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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