Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Leal-Perez, 06-50169 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-50169 Visitors: 9
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
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

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