Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. De La Rosa-Mendoza, 05-41678 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 05-41678 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jul. 13, 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 July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41678 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GERARDO DE LA ROSA-MENDOZA, also known as Mario Estrada-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-410-ALL - Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CU
More
                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                   July 13, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-41678
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERARDO DE LA ROSA-MENDOZA, also known as
Mario Estrada-Martinez,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
            Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 1:05-CR-410-ALL
                        --------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gerardo De La

Rosa-Mendoza 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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