Court Opinion

ID: 46801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 23:06:09+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:42.329017
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                December 6, 2006

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-41807
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE GUADALUPE DUARTE-JIMENEZ,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. 5:05-CR-1123-ALL
                       --------------------

Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Guadalupe

Duarte-Jimenez raises arguments that are foreclosed by United

States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 457 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006), which held that a Texas

conviction for burglary of a habitation was equivalent to

burglary of a dwelling and therefore was a crime of violence

under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, and by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
                           No. 05-41807
                                -2-

offense.   The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.