Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel LOPEZ-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-18
Citations: 88 F. App'x 773
Docket Number: No. 03-20528
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel LOPEZ-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 773–774

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel LOPEZ-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-20528
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Julia Bowen Stern, Assistant US Attorneys, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joel Lopez-Ortiz was found guilty following a stipulated bench trial of being found unlawfully present in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that the indictment should be dismissed under United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828, 107 S.Ct. 2148, 95 L.Ed.2d 772 (1987), and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) because the immigration judge who ordered him deported ap plied the wrong amendments to the immigration code and erroneously treated his felony conviction as an "aggravated felony." He concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent as well as the law of the case doctrine, and he raises them solely to preserve the issues for further review.
The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee's brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee's brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.