Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Pulido-Ramos, 06-50231 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-50231 Visitors: 20
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. 06-50231 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUAN PULIDO-RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-1989 - Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, J
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. 06-50231
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN PULIDO-RAMOS,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Texas
                       USDC No. 3:05-CR-1989
                        --------------------

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Pulido-Ramos

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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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