Filed: Nov. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-10076 Document: 00512825384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10076 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 4, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee v. DUSTIN PULIDO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-249-4 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Summary: Case: 14-10076 Document: 00512825384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10076 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 4, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee v. DUSTIN PULIDO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-249-4 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: ..
More
Case: 14-10076 Document: 00512825384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-10076
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 4, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DUSTIN PULIDO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:12-CR-249-4
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Dustin Pulido raises an
argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Hernandez,
633
F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2011), which held that a sentence within the statutory
maximum that is based upon judge-found facts does not violate the Sixth
Amendment. Accordingly, the unopposed motion for summary disposition is
GRANTED, and 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.