Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20214/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20214-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ruben Tovar Balleza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20214

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUBEN TOVAR BALLEZA, also known as Rosando Tobar Balleza, also known 

as Rosendo Tovar-Ballesa, also known as Rosendo Balleza Tovar, also known 

as Rosendo Tovar Balleza, also known as Rosendo Tovar-Balleza, also known 

as Rosando T. Balleza, also known as Rosendo Tovar, also known as Ruben 

Tovar-Balleza, also known as Rosendo Billesma Tovar, also known as Tosando 

Tobar Balleza, also known as Pedro Lezama, also known as Rosendo Towar, 

also known as Ruben Balleza, also known as Rosando Tobar,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-427-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ruben Tovar Balleza pleaded guilty to a single count of being unlawfully 

present in the United States after removal following a felony conviction. He 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 20, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20214 Document: 00513239194 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2015
No. 15-20214

2

was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised 

release. On appeal, he contends that the rationale of Crawford v. Washington,

541 U.S. 36 (2004), applies to the sentencing phase of a criminal prosecution 

and, thus, his rights under the Confrontation Clause and Due Process Clause 

were violated when the district court relied on a jail disciplinary report to deny

him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. 

However, Tovar Balleza moves for summary disposition of his appeal 

because he concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by our decisions in 

United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006), and United 

States v. Salas, 182 F. App’x 282, 284 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006). He asserts that 

he raises these issues to preserve them for possible further review. As Tovar 

Balleza concedes, his arguments are foreclosed; therefore, his motion for 

summary disposition is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20214 Document: 00513239194 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2015