Filed: Oct. 05, 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 October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-50630 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE RENE RAMOS-CARABANTES, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-535-1 - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgm
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-50630 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE RENE RAMOS-CARABANTES, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-535-1 - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgme..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 5, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50630
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE RENE RAMOS-CARABANTES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:04-CR-535-1
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Rene Ramos-
Carabantes raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States
v. Rueda-Rivera,
396 F.3d 678, 680 (5th Cir. 2005), which held
that the admission of a certificate of nonexistence of record,
which reflected that the deported defendant had not received
consent to reenter the United States, did not violate a
defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.