Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Gonzalez-Estrada, 06-51408 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-51408 Visitors: 43
Filed: Jul. 11, 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 July 11, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-51408 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MANUEL GONZALEZ-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-478-ALL - Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Ca
More
                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                   July 11, 2007

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 06-51408
                        Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MANUEL GONZALEZ-ESTRADA,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Western District of Texas
                    USDC No. 2:06-CR-478-ALL
                      --------------------

Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Manuel Gonzalez-

Estrada 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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