TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Armendariz-Moreno

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Armando ARMENDARIZ-MORENO, Also Known as Armando Moreno-Ortiz, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Armendariz-Moreno, 571 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2007)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 12, 2007
Docket
No. 07-40225
Judges
Reavley, Barksdale, Garza
Citations
571 F.3d 490258 F. App'x 6662009 WL 1653551
Status
Unpublished

Opinion — Per Curiam

*667 PER CURIAM:

* Armando Armendariz-Moreno (Armendariz) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and after having been convicted of an aggravated felony.

On appeal, Armendariz challenges the district court’s characterization of his prior Texas conviction of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle as an aggravated felony for sentencing purposes. Armendariz concedes that this issue is foreclosed, but he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for Supreme Court review in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 , 125 S.Ct. 377 , 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004). As Armendariz concedes, this issue is foreclosed.

See Brieva-Perez v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 356, 360-61 (5th Cir.2007);

United States v. Galvan-Rodriguez, 169 F.3d 217, 219-20 (5th Cir.1999).

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Armendariz also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.”

United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), cert. denied — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872 , 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008).

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* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2009: 120092026peak 2009 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Armendariz-Moreno571 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2009)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Armendariz-Moreno571 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2009)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) 24,918
Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 998
United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 2007) 831
Summage v. United States, 552 U.S. 1104 (2008) 284
United States v. Galvan-Rodriguez, 169 F.3d 217 (5th Cir. 1999) 69
Brieva-Perez v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2007) 34

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list