Filed: Feb. 15, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 94-20785 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JORGE HERNAN VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-93-CR-237-1) _ February 5, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jorge Hernan Valencia appeals the district court's finding that his relevant conduct properly included 79.07 kilograms of cocain
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 94-20785 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JORGE HERNAN VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-93-CR-237-1) _ February 5, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jorge Hernan Valencia appeals the district court's finding that his relevant conduct properly included 79.07 kilograms of cocaine..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________ No. 94-20785 Summary Calendar __________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JORGE HERNAN VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-93-CR-237-1) _______________________________________________________ February 5, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jorge Hernan Valencia appeals the district court's finding that his relevant conduct properly included 79.07 kilograms of cocaine. Valencia also contests the district court's conversion of $1,007,611 to 67.17 kilograms of cocaine. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and perceive no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm Valencia's sentence. AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
