Filed: Feb. 24, 2006
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 February 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-11010 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ENRIQUE RETANA-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-21-ALL - Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-11010 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ENRIQUE RETANA-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-21-ALL - Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-11010
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ENRIQUE RETANA-MENDOZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-21-ALL
--------------------
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Enrique Retana-
Mendoza 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.