Court Opinion

ID: 39501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 20:26:45+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:04.827850
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                 August 17, 2005

                                                          Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 05-50276
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSCAR LUIS GARCIA, also known as Alvaro
Duran-Lopez, also known as Jesus Renteria,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                   USDC No. 3:04-CR-1782-ALL
                       --------------------

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

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 (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), petition for cert. filed (Mar.

31, 2005) (No. 04-9517), and its progeny, which held that

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 05-50276
                               -2-

unpreserved claims based on United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.

738 (2005), are reviewed for plain error.   The Government’s

motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.