Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel ESQUIVEL-CANTERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-05
Citations: 202 F. App'x 10
Docket Number: No. 06-40558
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel ESQUIVEL-CANTERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 10–11

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel ESQUIVEL-CANTERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40558
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 5, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Dis trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Angel Esquivel-Cantera raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Valdez-Maltos, 443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 265, 166 L.E.2d 205 (2006), and United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1398, 164 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006), which held that a Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation was equivalent to burglary of a dwelling, and 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 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.