United States v. Ortiz-Grajeda

95 F. App'x 705
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 20, 2004
Docket03-50928
StatusUnpublished

This text of 95 F. App'x 705 (United States v. Ortiz-Grajeda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Ortiz-Grajeda, 95 F. App'x 705 (5th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-50928 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDUARDO FELICIANO ORTIZ-GRAJEDA,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-370-ALL-PRM --------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eduardo Feliciano Ortiz-Grajeda appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Ortiz-Grajeda argues that his prior removal hearing deprived him

of due process and therefore that the removal may not be used to

establish an element of the charge that he was in the United

States unlawfully after removal. Ortiz-Grajeda also argues that

his sentence violated due process because it exceeded the

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 03-50928 -2-

statutory maximum sentence for the offense charged in the

indictment. He concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by

Fifth Circuit precedent. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523

U.S. 224, 235 (1998); United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d 225

(5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1135 (2003). He raises

these issues solely to preserve them for possible further review.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

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

Related

Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court, 1998)
United States v. Joel Lopez-Ortiz
313 F.3d 225 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 F. App'x 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ortiz-grajeda-ca5-2004.