Filed: Jul. 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-21127 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RUDOLFO ARIAS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CR-142-11 - June 29, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rudolfo Arias appeals from the dismissal of his motion for return of property pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 41(e). Arias does not argue th
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-21127 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RUDOLFO ARIAS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CR-142-11 - June 29, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rudolfo Arias appeals from the dismissal of his motion for return of property pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 41(e). Arias does not argue the..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-21127
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RUDOLFO ARIAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-95-CR-142-11
--------------------
June 29, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rudolfo Arias appeals from the dismissal of his motion for
return of property pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 41(e). Arias does
not argue the jurisdictional basis for the dismissal of his
motion beyond merely stating the issue, and he does not brief
whether he had standing to raise his daughter’s interests. We do
not address Arias’s double-jeopardy contention, which he raises
for the first time in his reply brief. See Taita Chem. Co. v.
Westlake Styrene Corp.,
246 F.3d 377, 384, n.9 (5th Cir. 2001).
Arias has failed to brief the relevant issues for appeal,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-21127
-2-
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987); his appeal is dismissed as frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.