United States v. Ramirez

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Ramirez. Read the opinion of the Court — 145 F. App'x 915
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided December 12, 2007·No. 07-50776·Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED December 12, 2007 No. 07-50776 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FELIPE RAMIREZ, also known as Felipe Ramirez-Gloria

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-546-ALL

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Felipe Ramirez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (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. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Ramirez, (5th Cir. 2007).

United States v. Ramirez (United States v. Ramirez) — 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)