Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Francisco, 18-70011 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 18-70011 Visitors: 12
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. 06-50910 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ELIDO RAMON FRANCISCO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-2720-1 - Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal
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. 06-50910
                         Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELIDO RAMON FRANCISCO,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                         --------------------
            Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Texas
                       USDC No. 3:05-CR-2720-1
                         --------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Elido Ramon

Francisco 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

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