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. 05-51419 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JESUS SANDOVAL-RESENDIZ, also known as Jesus Sandoval-Resendez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-736-ALL - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Ju
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. 05-51419 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JESUS SANDOVAL-RESENDIZ, also known as Jesus Sandoval-Resendez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-736-ALL - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Jud..
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. 05-51419
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESUS SANDOVAL-RESENDIZ, also known
as Jesus Sandoval-Resendez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-736-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jesus Sandoval-
Resendiz 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.