United States v. Villanueva

280 F. App'x 384

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge Villanueva raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Rueda-Rivera, 396 F.3d 678, 680 (5th Cir.2005), which held that the admission into evidence of a Certificate of Nonexistence of Record to establish that the Government had not consented to Villanueva’s presence in the United States does not violate the Confrontation Clause, and 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* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.