United States v. Rodriguez-Flores

230 F. App'x 423
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Rodriguez-Flores. Read the opinion of the Court — 249 F. App'x 317
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 6, 2007·No. 06-11325·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Salvador Rodriguez-Flores 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. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *424 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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. Rodriguez-Flores, 230 F. App'x 423 (5th Cir. 2007).

230 F. App'x 423 (United States v. Rodriguez-Flores) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court, 1998)