Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro OSPINO-ALZATE, also known as Pedro Alzate Ospino, also known as Pedro Ospina Alzate, also known as Pedro Alzate Ospina, also known as Pedro Garcia Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-06
Citations: 208 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 06-20541
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro OSPINO-ALZATE, also known as Pedro Alzate Ospino, also known as Pedro Ospina Alzate, also known as Pedro Alzate Ospina, also known as Pedro Garcia Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 208
Pages: 307–307

Head Matter:
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro OSPINO-ALZATE, also known as Pedro Alzate Ospino, also known as Pedro Ospina Alzate, also known as Pedro Alzate Ospina, also known as Pedro Garcia Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-20541
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 6, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Pedro Ospino-Alzate 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 eriminal 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.