Filed: Jun. 16, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-40477 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODOLFO URESTI-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-97-CR-278-3 - - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rodolfo Uresti-Garza appeals the sentence he received following his guilty ple
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-40477 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODOLFO URESTI-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-97-CR-278-3 - - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rodolfo Uresti-Garza appeals the sentence he received following his guilty plea..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40477
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODOLFO URESTI-GARZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-97-CR-278-3
- - - - - - - - - -
June 16, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rodolfo Uresti-Garza appeals the sentence he received
following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess
more than 500 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute it.
Uresti argues that the district erred in increasing his offense
level for obstruction of justice. The increase was not
erroneous. See United States v. Como,
53 F.3d 87, 90 (5th Cir.
1995).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-40477
-2-
Uresti also argues that the district erred in refusing to
decrease his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. The
district court’s refusal was not erroneous. See United States v.
Calverley,
11 F.3d 505, 514 (5th Cir. 1993), reinstated in part
on reh’g,
37 F.3d 160, 165 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). The
judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.