Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Procopio RAMIREZ-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-12
Citations: 261 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 06-50900
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Procopio RAMIREZ-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 641–641

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Procopio RAMIREZ-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50900
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 12, 2007.
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.
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Procopio Ramirez-Gomez (Ramirez) raises arguments that he concedes 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 criminal offense. See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), petition for cert. filed — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). Ramirez has served his term of incarceration and has been removed from the United States. Ramirez also raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, (June 25, 2007) (No. 06-12082), which held that an appeal of a sentence is moot when the appellant has been removed and is barred from entering the United States. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. The appeal is DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.