Filed: Oct. 26, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-41381 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANIBAL CABRERA-PIRIS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-00-CR-635-ALL - October 25, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Anibal Cabrera-Piris appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of one count of possession of approxima
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-41381 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANIBAL CABRERA-PIRIS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-00-CR-635-ALL - October 25, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Anibal Cabrera-Piris appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of one count of possession of approximat..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-41381
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANIBAL CABRERA-PIRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-00-CR-635-ALL
--------------------
October 25, 2001
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anibal Cabrera-Piris appeals his sentence following his
guilty-plea conviction of one count of possession of
approximately 6025 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute.
He argues that the district court erred in denying him a downward
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 3E1.1(a). Cabrera-Piris has not shown that the district
court’s determination on this matter, which is entitled to great
deference, should be overturned. See United States v. Spires,
79
F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 1996); See United States v. Wilder,
15
F.3d 1292, 1298-99 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.