Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Lujan-Armendariz, 07-50430 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 07-50430 Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 06, 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 September 6, 2007 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 07-50430 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. VALENTIN LUJAN-ARMENDARIZ, also known as Juan Manuel Duran-Carillo, also known as Jose Manuel Zuniga Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-2593-ALL Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and OWEN
More
                                                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                                                       F I L E D
          IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                             September 6, 2007
                   FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                            Clerk
                                No. 07-50430
                             Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                            Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VALENTIN LUJAN-ARMENDARIZ, also known as Juan Manuel
Duran-Carillo, also known as Jose Manuel Zuniga

                                            Defendant-Appellant


                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Texas
                        USDC No. 3:06-CR-2593-ALL


Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
      Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Valentin Lujan-Armendariz
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. See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 
492 F.3d 624
, 625 (5th Cir. 2007).       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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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