Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Espinoza-Medrano, 06-41479 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-41479 Visitors: 44
Filed: Aug. 09, 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 August 8, 2007 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-41479 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. RICARDO ESPINOZA-MEDRANO, also known as Ricardo Montalvo-Medrano Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-140-ALL Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appeal
More
                                                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                                                       F I L E D
          IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                             August 8, 2007
                   FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                   Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                           Clerk
                                 No. 06-41479
                              Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                            Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICARDO ESPINOZA-MEDRANO, also known as Ricardo
Montalvo-Medrano

                                            Defendant-Appellant


                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                         USDC No. 5:06-CR-140-ALL


Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
      Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ricardo Espinoza-Medrano
raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
523 U.S. 224
, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. ยง 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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