Filed: Dec. 06, 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 December 6, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-40587 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus VICTOR MANUEL RAMOS-MEJIA, also known as Victor Manuel Hernandez-Mejias, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-1066 - Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 6, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-40587 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus VICTOR MANUEL RAMOS-MEJIA, also known as Victor Manuel Hernandez-Mejias, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-1066 - Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges...
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 6, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40587
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VICTOR MANUEL RAMOS-MEJIA, also known as Victor Manuel
Hernandez-Mejias,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:05-CR-1066
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Victor Manuel
Ramos-Mejia 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.