Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Monico Gudino-Estrada raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 528 U.S. 224, 285, 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. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
181 F. App'x 486
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monico GUDINO-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41724.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided July 13, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern *487District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
United States v. Gudino-Estrada
181 F. App'x 486
Case Details
181 F. App'x 486
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!