Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor LOPEZ-SEVILLA, also known as Victor Manuel Lopez, also known as Victor Lopez Sevilla, also known as Hector Robles, also known as Victor Lopez, 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 735
Docket Number: No. 07-20208
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor LOPEZ-SEVILLA, also known as Victor Manuel Lopez, also known as Victor Lopez Sevilla, also known as Hector Robles, also known as Victor Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 735–736

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor LOPEZ-SEVILLA, also known as Victor Manuel Lopez, also known as Victor Lopez Sevilla, also known as Hector Robles, also known as Victor Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-20208.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 5, 2007.
James P. Turner, 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 JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Victor Lopez-Sevilla 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 erimi nal offense. See 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 (2007). 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.