United States v. Clark

250 F. App'x 14
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Clark. Read the opinion of the Court — 389 F.3d 141
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided October 3, 2007·No. 07-50125·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Adrian Nickolas Clark 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), petition for cert, filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. *15 07-6202). 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

United States v. Clark, 250 F. App'x 14 (5th Cir. 2007).

250 F. App'x 14 (United States v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Pineda-Arrellano
492 F.3d 624 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court, 1998)