Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Venegas-Garcia, 05-41296 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 05-41296 Visitors: 28
Filed: Sep. 08, 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 September 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41296 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus OSCAR RENE VENEGAS-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 6:05-CR-43-ALL - Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a Crimi
More
                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                September 8, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-41296
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSCAR RENE VENEGAS-GARCIA,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. 6:05-CR-43-ALL
                       --------------------

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Oscar Rene

Venegas-Garcia 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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