Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Balderas-Abundis raises argu*633ments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), cert. denied — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
259 F. App'x 632
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose BALDERAS-ABUNDIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50740
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 12, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for D efendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
United States v. Balderas-Abundis
259 F. App'x 632
Case Details
259 F. App'x 632
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!