Filed: Nov. 09, 2005
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 November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-40273 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS FERNANDO CADENA-SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-918-ALL - Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-40273 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS FERNANDO CADENA-SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-918-ALL - Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a C..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 9, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40273
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS FERNANDO CADENA-SOLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:04-CR-918-ALL
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Carlos Fernando
Cadena-Solis raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-
Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held
that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b)(2) 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.