Filed: Mar. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20452 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE A. DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-738-1 March 15, 2001 Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose A. Diaz appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess cocaine and for the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.1
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20452 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE A. DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-738-1 March 15, 2001 Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose A. Diaz appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess cocaine and for the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.1 H..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20452
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE A. DIAZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CR-738-1
March 15, 2001
Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose A. Diaz appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess
cocaine and for the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.1 He contends
*
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1), 846.
that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (2) the district
court erred in calculating the drug quantity for sentencing purposes; and (3) in
light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,
120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), and Jones v. United
States,
526 U.S. 227 (1999), the district court erred in not presenting the drug-
quantity issue to the jury.
Our review of the record and briefs of the parties persuades that the
evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Diaz guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.2 Further, the district court did not err when it estimated the
drug quantity for sentencing based on the facts contained in the presentence
investigation report which it adopted.3 Finally, Diaz’s contention with respect to
the teachings of Apprendi and Jones lacks merit because he obviously was
sentenced below the statutory maximum.4 Accordingly, Diaz’s conviction and
sentence are AFFIRMED.
2
United States v. Meshack,
225 F.3d 556 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied sub nom. Parker v.
United States,
121 S. Ct. 834 (2001); United States v. Westbrook,
119 F.3d 1176 (5th Cir.
1997).
3
United States v. Franklin,
148 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 1998).
4
United States v. Doggett,
230 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 4,
2001) (No. 00-7819); United States v. Keith,
230 F.3d 784 (5th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed
(Jan. 16, 2001) (No. 00-8077).
2