Filed: May 02, 2007
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 May 2, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-11144 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAVIER NATIVIDAD-HERNANDEZ, also known as Noe Hernandez-Lopez, also known as Robert Anthony Escobedo, also known as Joe Hernandez-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 2, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-11144 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAVIER NATIVIDAD-HERNANDEZ, also known as Noe Hernandez-Lopez, also known as Robert Anthony Escobedo, also known as Joe Hernandez-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-3..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 2, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-11144
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAVIER NATIVIDAD-HERNANDEZ, also known as Noe
Hernandez-Lopez, also known as Robert Anthony Escobedo,
also known as Joe Hernandez-Lopez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:06-CR-39-ALL
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Javier Natividad-
Hernandez 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.