CRUZ v. U.S., 2:14-cr-00267-GEB. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150427669
Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . Appellant Terrance Cruz, Sr. appeals the Magistrate Judge's August 4, 2014 guilty finding on Count One of the Information. After review of the record, I conclude the Magistrate Judge supportably found that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that conditions two and three of the special use permit issued to Appellant were violated. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found This case is not about violation of the quantity sp
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . Appellant Terrance Cruz, Sr. appeals the Magistrate Judge's August 4, 2014 guilty finding on Count One of the Information. After review of the record, I conclude the Magistrate Judge supportably found that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that conditions two and three of the special use permit issued to Appellant were violated. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found This case is not about violation of the quantity spe..
More
ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Appellant Terrance Cruz, Sr. appeals the Magistrate Judge's August 4, 2014 guilty finding on Count One of the Information.
After review of the record, I conclude the Magistrate Judge supportably found that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that conditions two and three of the special use permit issued to Appellant were violated. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found
This case is not about violation of the quantity specification for pine cones in the permit Mr. Cruz was issued, [i]t's about the fact that Mr. Cruz wasn't personally present with the original permit at the time that the cones were being collected [as required by the permit]. It is a non-transferable permit and [Mr. Cruz] effectively transferred it and made copies, which is disallowed, and distributed them to people who were working under him.
(Bench Trial & Sentencing Tr. 116:2-9, ECF No. 37.)
Therefore, the finding of guilt is affirmed.
Source: Leagle
