Case ID: f-appx_88/html/0773-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel LOPEZ-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-20528
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 18, 2004.
    James Lee Turner, Julia Bowen Stern, Assistant US Attorneys, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Joel Lopez-Ortiz was found guilty following a stipulated bench trial of being found unlawfully present in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that the indictment should be dismissed under United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828, 107 S.Ct. 2148, 95 L.Ed.2d 772 (1987), and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) because the immigration judge who ordered him deported applied the wrong amendments to the immigration code and erroneously treated his felony conviction as an “aggravated felony.” He concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent as well as the law of the case doctrine, and he raises them solely to preserve the issues for 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.