Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymondo CONTRERAS-VELASQUEZ, also known as Ernesto Contreras, also known as Javier Ramirez, also known as Javier Ramirez Contreras, also known as Raymundo Leon Contreras, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-17
Citations: 115 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 04-50495
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymondo CONTRERAS-VELASQUEZ, also known as Ernesto Contreras, also known as Javier Ramirez, also known as Javier Ramirez Contreras, also known as Raymundo Leon Contreras, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymondo CONTRERAS-VELASQUEZ, also known as Ernesto Contreras, also known as Javier Ramirez, also known as Javier Ramirez Contreras, also known as Raymundo Leon Contreras, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-50495.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 17, 2004.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Raymondo Contreras-Velasquez 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, and by United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir.2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263), which held that Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), does not apply to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.