Filed: Jul. 16, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 16, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 02-20837 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus IRAJ MAHMOUDI, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-01-CR-587-ALL) _ Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Iraj Mahmoudi appeals his convictions for unlawful procur
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 16, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 02-20837 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus IRAJ MAHMOUDI, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-01-CR-587-ALL) _ Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Iraj Mahmoudi appeals his convictions for unlawful procure..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 16, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
02-20837
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
IRAJ MAHMOUDI,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-01-CR-587-ALL)
_________________________________________________________________
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Iraj Mahmoudi appeals his convictions for unlawful procurement
of citizenship, 18 U.S.C. § 1425(b), and making a false statement
to a federal agency, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. He contends: the evidence
was insufficient to convict him of either charge; 8 C.F.R. §
316.10, which defines a term in § 1425(b), violates the separation-
of-powers doctrine; and the district court erred by denying his
motion to suppress evidence seized from his apartment.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Having heard oral argument and reviewed the briefs and
pertinent parts of the record, we conclude there was no error. The
judgment is
AFFIRMED.
2