Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Felipe GONZALEZ-AGUILAR, also known as Juan Felipe Gonzalez Aguilar, also known as Juan Gonzalez Cortez, also known as Francisco Cortez Gonzalez, also known as Diego Rafael Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-14
Citations: 158 F. App'x 569
Docket Number: No. 05-10361
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Felipe GONZALEZ-AGUILAR, also known as Juan Felipe Gonzalez Aguilar, also known as Juan Gonzalez Cortez, also known as Francisco Cortez Gonzalez, also known as Diego Rafael Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 569–569

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Felipe GONZALEZ-AGUILAR, also known as Juan Felipe Gonzalez Aguilar, also known as Juan Gonzalez Cortez, also known as Francisco Cortez Gonzalez, also known as Diego Rafael Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-10361.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 14, 2005.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Felipe Gonzalez-Aguilar 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 a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.