Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Luis GARCIA, also known as Alvaro Duran-Lopez, also known as Jesus Renteria, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-17
Citations: 145 F. App'x 68
Docket Number: No. 05-50276
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Luis GARCIA, also known as Alvaro Duran-Lopez, also known as Jesus Renteria, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 68–69

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Luis GARCIA, also known as Alvaro Duran-Lopez, also known as Jesus Renteria, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50276.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 17, 2005.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western Dis trict of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Oscar Luis Garcia 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. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied — U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2005 WL 816208 (2005), and its progeny, which held that unpreserved claims based on United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), are reviewed for plain error. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.