Filed: Jun. 06, 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 June 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-51337 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE ANTONIO MORENO-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Juan Antonio Moreno-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-436-ALL - Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, 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 June 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-51337 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE ANTONIO MORENO-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Juan Antonio Moreno-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-436-ALL - Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, 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 June 6, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-51337
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE ANTONIO MORENO-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Juan Antonio
Moreno-Rodriguez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:06-CR-436-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Antonio
Moreno-Rodriguez 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.