Filed: Dec. 07, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41259 Consolidated with 98-41290 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE AMADOR SILVAS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (C-98-CR-171-1 & L-93-CR-91-1) December 6, 1999 Before JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and PRADO*, District Judge. PER CURIAM:* The court has carefully considered the briefs and excellent oral arguments of counsel in light of the recor
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41259 Consolidated with 98-41290 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE AMADOR SILVAS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (C-98-CR-171-1 & L-93-CR-91-1) December 6, 1999 Before JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and PRADO*, District Judge. PER CURIAM:* The court has carefully considered the briefs and excellent oral arguments of counsel in light of the record..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41259 Consolidated with 98-41290 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE AMADOR SILVAS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (C-98-CR-171-1 & L-93-CR-91-1) December 6, 1999 Before JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and PRADO*, District Judge. PER CURIAM:* The court has carefully considered the briefs and excellent oral arguments of counsel in light of the record and, having done so, finds no clear error of fact in the district court’s determination that the license plate was sufficiently damaged and blurred that the police officer had probable cause to believe that state law was being violated. As a result, the stop of Silvas’ vehicle was constitutional, and his conviction for transporting illegal aliens is AFFIRMED. * District Judge of the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 1 AFFIRMED. 2
