Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Laboriel-Gotay, 06-40943 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-40943 Visitors: 108
Filed: Feb. 07, 2007
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 February 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-40943 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SERGIO ABAD LABORIEL-GOTAY, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-134 - Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, 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                 February 7, 2007

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 06-40943
                        Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SERGIO ABAD LABORIEL-GOTAY,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                       USDC No. 1:06-CR-134
                       --------------------

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Sergio Abad

Laboriel-Gotay 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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