Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario PENALOZA-TREJO, also known as Mario Penalosa-Trejo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-05
Citations: 256 F. App'x 740
Docket Number: No. 07-50610
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario PENALOZA-TREJO, also known as Mario Penalosa-Trejo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 740–740

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario PENALOZA-TREJO, also known as Mario Penalosa-Trejo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50610.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 5, 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 JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Mario Penaloza-Trejo 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 criminal offense. United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.