Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro RIVERA-PASCUAL, also known as Alejandro Pascual-Rivera, also known as Robert Silva, also known as Jose Antonio Mejia, also known as Alejandro Rivera, also known as Antonio Rivera-Pascual, also known as Adonis Jose Mejia, 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 39
Docket Number: No. 06-50324
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro RIVERA-PASCUAL, also known as Alejandro Pascual-Rivera, also known as Robert Silva, also known as Jose Antonio Mejia, also known as Alejandro Rivera, also known as Antonio Rivera-Pascual, also known as Adonis Jose Mejia, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 39–39

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro RIVERA-PASCUAL, also known as Alejandro Pascual-Rivera, also known as Robert Silva, also known as Jose Antonio Mejia, also known as Alejandro Rivera, also known as Antonio Rivera-Pascual, also known as Adonis Jose Mejia, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50324
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 5, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alejandro Rivera-Pascual 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 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.