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. 06-50283 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LORENZO ESCALANTE-GUARDADO, also known as Loreno Antonio Escalante-Guardado, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-2214 - Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Jud
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. 06-50283 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LORENZO ESCALANTE-GUARDADO, also known as Loreno Antonio Escalante-Guardado, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-2214 - Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judg..
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. 06-50283
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LORENZO ESCALANTE-GUARDADO, also known as Loreno Antonio
Escalante-Guardado,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-2214
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Lorenzo
Escalante-Guardado 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.