Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Elliott GORTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-09
Citations: 205 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 06-41021
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Elliott GORTON, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Elliott GORTON, Defendant-Appellant
No. 06-41021
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 9, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case following a remand for resentencing, James Elliott Gorton raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 528 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. Gorton also raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Stone, 306 F.3d 241, 243 (5th Cir.2002), which held that no Sixth Amendment violation arises when a district court considers the nature of a prior conviction rather than presenting the question to a jury in sentencing the defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act, and by United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir.2002), which held that under the law of the case doctrine, an issue of fact or law decided on appeal may not be reexamined by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.