Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Gallegos-Trejo, 06-50047 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-50047 Visitors: 54
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. 06-50047 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALVARO GALLEGOS-TREJO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-1494-ALL - Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a Crimi
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. 06-50047
                         Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALVARO GALLEGOS-TREJO,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                    USDC No. 3:05-CR-1494-ALL
                       --------------------

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alvaro Gallegos-

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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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