Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis Rojero VALLES, also known as Hector Fraga Valles, also known as Loreto Lavat, also known as Manuel Longorea, also known as Daniel Reyes Valles, also known as Jaime Robles Reyes, also known as Arturo Longoria, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-24
Citations: 169 F. App'x 340
Docket Number: No. 05-10879
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis Rojero VALLES, also known as Hector Fraga Valles, also known as Loreto Lavat, also known as Manuel Longorea, also known as Daniel Reyes Valles, also known as Jaime Robles Reyes, also known as Arturo Longoria, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 340–341

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis Rojero VALLES, also known as Hector Fraga Valles, also known as Loreto Lavat, also known as Manuel Longorea, also known as Daniel Reyes Valles, also known as Jaime Robles Reyes, also known as Arturo Longoria, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-10879.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 24, 2006.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Bret E. Helmer, U.S. Attorney’s Of fice Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Raymond J. Rodgers, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.