Filed: Nov. 09, 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 November 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-21099 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LUIS SALAZAR-ESTRADA, also known as Sergeant Mario Morales, also known as Carlos Carrion, also known as Armoand Roldan, also known as Anastacio Vega-Encino, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District o
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, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-21099 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LUIS SALAZAR-ESTRADA, also known as Sergeant Mario Morales, also known as Carlos Carrion, also known as Armoand Roldan, also known as Anastacio Vega-Encino, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of..
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, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-21099
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS SALAZAR-ESTRADA, also known as Sergeant Mario Morales, also
known as Carlos Carrion, also known as Armoand Roldan, also
known as Anastacio Vega-Encino,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-167-ALL
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis Salazar-
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.