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. 06-50018 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-FLORES, also known as Raul Torres-Lopez, also known as Raul Cipriano Torres-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-317 - Before KING, GARWOOD, an
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. 06-50018 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-FLORES, also known as Raul Torres-Lopez, also known as Raul Cipriano Torres-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-317 - Before KING, GARWOOD, and..
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. 06-50018
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-FLORES, also known as Raul
Torres-Lopez, also known as Raul Cipriano Torres-Lopez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:04-CR-317
--------------------
Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alejandro
Martinez-Flores 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.