Filed: Apr. 09, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-50924 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALFONSO PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-780-ALL-IL - - - - - - - - - - April 8, 2002 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:* Alfonso Pineda (“Pineda”), whose real name is Blas Martinez- Briones, appeals from his guilty
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-50924 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALFONSO PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-780-ALL-IL - - - - - - - - - - April 8, 2002 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:* Alfonso Pineda (“Pineda”), whose real name is Blas Martinez- Briones, appeals from his guilty-..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50924
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALFONSO PINEDA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-01-CR-780-ALL-IL
- - - - - - - - - -
April 8, 2002
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Alfonso Pineda (“Pineda”), whose real name is Blas Martinez-
Briones, appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for importing
100 kilograms or more of a substance containing a detectable
amount of marijuana. He argues that the Government breached its
promise in the plea agreement not to oppose a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility. Although this issue is normally
reviewed de novo, because Pineda failed to object on this basis
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50924
-2-
at sentencing, we review this issue only for plain error. See
United States v. Reeves,
255 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 2001).
The prosecutor’s comments challenged by Pineda did not
explicitly oppose the imposition of a reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. Pineda has failed to show that such comments
constituted plain error. See United States v. Olano,
507 U.S.
725, 732 (1993). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.