Filed: Nov. 08, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40086 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCISCO ZEPEDA, JR., Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (L:95-CR-127-1) - - - - - - - - - - November 1, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Francisco Zepeda, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distrib
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40086 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCISCO ZEPEDA, JR., Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (L:95-CR-127-1) - - - - - - - - - - November 1, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Francisco Zepeda, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribu..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40086
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO ZEPEDA, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(L:95-CR-127-1)
- - - - - - - - - -
November 1, 1996
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Francisco Zepeda, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence for
possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Zepeda argues that the district court erred
in denying his motion to suppress the marijuana discovered in his
vehicle in which he was traveling. Zepeda argues that the U.S.
Border Patrol agent lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the stop
of his vehicle. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the
reasons stated by the district court in its order denying the
motion to suppress. See United States v. Zepeda, No. L-95-127
(S.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 1995).
AFFIRMED.