U.S. v. MALLEN-DE LUNA, 272 Fed.Appx. 375 (5th Cir. 2008)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Dimas ALVAREZ-ESPINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-51228 Conference Calendar.United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 2, 2008.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC No. 1.-07-CR-143-ALL.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:[*]

[*] 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Dimas Alvarez-Espino raises arguments that are foreclosed b 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 (5thCir.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.