Filed: Nov. 09, 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 November 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-50169 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SAMUEL LEAL-PEREZ, also known as Alfonso Briseno, also known as Samuel Leal, also known as Jose Lopez-Bueno, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-1785-ALL - Before BARKSD
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-50169 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SAMUEL LEAL-PEREZ, also known as Alfonso Briseno, also known as Samuel Leal, also known as Jose Lopez-Bueno, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-1785-ALL - Before BARKSDA..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 9, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50169
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL LEAL-PEREZ, also known as Alfonso Briseno, also known
as Samuel Leal, also known as Jose Lopez-Bueno,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-1785-ALL
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Samuel Leal-Perez
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.