Court Opinion

ID: 4177577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-06-15 00:03:36.439776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:34.789672
License: Public Domain

Case: 16-11655      Document: 00514033615         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/14/2017

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 16-11655                                FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                          June 14, 2017
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GERARDO RODRIGUEZ-TREVINO,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:15-CR-528-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Gerardo Rodriguez-Trevino
raises an argument that is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224, 228, 235 (1998), which held that convictions used to enhance a
sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) need not be set forth in the indictment.
Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 16-11655   Document: 00514033615     Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/14/2017

                                No. 16-11655

motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                      2