Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Solome-Servin, 07-40386 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 07-40386 Visitors: 31
Filed: Sep. 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 September 6, 2007 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 07-40386 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOSE SOLOME-SERVIN, also known as Chago Hernandez-Rovio Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-998-ALL Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the
More
                                                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                                                       F I L E D
          IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                             September 6, 2007
                   FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                   Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                           Clerk
                                No. 07-40386
                             Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE SOLOME-SERVIN, also known as Chago Hernandez-Rovio

                                           Defendant-Appellant


                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                         USDC No. 1:06-CR-998-ALL


Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
      Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Solome-Servin raises
arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
523 U.S. 224
, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. ยง 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and
not a separate criminal offense. See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 
492 F.3d 624
, 625 (5th Cir. 2007). The appellant's motion for summary disposition 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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