Filed: Apr. 12, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-50493 Conference Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUAN CARLOS SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-00-CR-319-1 - April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Juan Carlos Serrano appeals the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to possessing and to importing less than 50 ki
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-50493 Conference Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUAN CARLOS SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-00-CR-319-1 - April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Juan Carlos Serrano appeals the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to possessing and to importing less than 50 kil..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 01-50493
Conference Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN CARLOS SERRANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. DR-00-CR-319-1
--------------------
April 11, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Carlos Serrano appeals the sentence he received after
he pleaded guilty to possessing and to importing less than 50
kilograms of marijuana. Serrano argues that the district court
erred when it determined that four prior marijuana loads he
confessed to importing prior to the instant offense constituted
relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). Given the degree
of similarity in the modus operandi of the prior loads and the
instant offense, the district court’s determination that the
prior loads were relevant conduct under § 1B1.3 is not error.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50493
-2-
United States v. Ocana,
204 F.3d 585, 589 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied,
531 U.S. 880 (2000).
AFFIRMED.