Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Dimas Alvarez-Espino raises arguments 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 af-firmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
272 F. App'x 375
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Dimas ALVAREZ-ESPINO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-51228
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 2, 2008.
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 Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
United States v. Alvarez-Espino
272 F. App'x 375
Case Details
272 F. App'x 375
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!