United States v. Barajas-Tinoco

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Barajas-Tinoco

276 F. App'x 400

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 30, 2008·No. 07-51379·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ejinardo Barajas-Tinoco 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 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *401 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ejinardo Barajas-Tinoco 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 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *401 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

United States v. Barajas-Tinoco, 276 F. App'x 400 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

276 F. App'x 400 (United States v. Barajas-Tinoco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related