Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Saldana, 06-50198 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-50198 Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 12, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 12, 2007 No. 06-50198 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. HERMAN SALDANA JR Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-258-ALL Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Herman Sa
More
           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                                                            FILED
                                                                        December 12, 2007
                                     No. 06-50198
                                  Conference Calendar                 Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                              Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HERMAN SALDANA JR

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 2:05-CR-258-ALL


Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Herman Saldana, Jr.,
raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. De Jesus
Batres, 
410 F.3d 154
, 162 (5th Cir. 2005), which held that proof of specific intent
to violate immigration laws is not an element of the offense of alien harboring.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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