Filed: Mar. 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 March 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-20371 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TRINIDAD PADILLA-RAMOS, also known as Trinidad Padilla, also known as Trinidad Ramos, also known as Trinidad Ramos Padilla, also known as Trinidad P. Padilla, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-20371 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TRINIDAD PADILLA-RAMOS, also known as Trinidad Padilla, also known as Trinidad Ramos, also known as Trinidad Ramos Padilla, also known as Trinidad P. Padilla, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 7, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20371
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TRINIDAD PADILLA-RAMOS, also known as Trinidad Padilla, also
known as Trinidad Ramos, also known as Trinidad Ramos
Padilla, also known as Trinidad P. Padilla,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-298-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Trinidad Padilla-
Ramos 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.