Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfredo RUBIO-ALVAREZ, also known as Alfredo Rubio, also known as Alfredo Alvarez Rubio, also known as Alfredo Rubio Alvarez, also known as Alfredo Alvares Rubio, also known as Alfredo Rubio-Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-02
Citations: 272 F. App'x 369
Docket Number: No. 07-20815
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfredo RUBIO-ALVAREZ, also known as Alfredo Rubio, also known as Alfredo Alvarez Rubio, also known as Alfredo Rubio Alvarez, also known as Alfredo Alvares Rubio, also known as Alfredo Rubio-Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 369–369

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfredo RUBIO-ALVAREZ, also known as Alfredo Rubio, also known as Alfredo Alvarez Rubio, also known as Alfredo Rubio Alvarez, also known as Alfredo Alvares Rubio, also known as Alfredo Rubio-Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-20815
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 2, 2008.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alfredo Rubio-Alvarez 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 appellant's motion for summary disposition 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.