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. 06-51023 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODOLFO CENICEROS-FACIO, also known as Modesto Pineda-Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-578-ALL - Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIA
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. 06-51023 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODOLFO CENICEROS-FACIO, also known as Modesto Pineda-Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-578-ALL - Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM..
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. 06-51023
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODOLFO CENICEROS-FACIO, also known as Modesto
Pineda-Ramirez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:06-CR-578-ALL
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rodolfo
Ceniceros-Facio 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.