Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Eduardo ZEPEDA-SOTO, also known as Eric Eduardo Zepeda, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Eduardo Zepeda, also known as Eric Ecuardo Zepeda, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Eduardo Zepeda, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-04
Citations: 224 F. App'x 397
Docket Number: Nos. 06-51397, 06-51504, 06-51505
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Eduardo ZEPEDA-SOTO, also known as Eric Eduardo Zepeda, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Eduardo Zepeda, also known as Eric Ecuardo Zepeda, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Eduardo Zepeda, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 397–398

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Eduardo ZEPEDA-SOTO, also known as Eric Eduardo Zepeda, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Eduardo Zepeda, also known as Eric Ecuardo Zepeda, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Eduardo Zepeda, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 06-51397, 06-51504, 06-51505
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 4, 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 JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgments in these Criminal Cases, the defendant 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. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgments of the district court are 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.