Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Rodriguez Ramos, 94-2020 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 94-2020 Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 31, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary:  Rafael Anglada-Lopez argued for appellant Gonzalez-Alvira., ____________________ Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, Criminal, _________________________ Division, with whom Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, was on, _____________ brief for appellee.
USCA1 Opinion









March 31, 1995
[Not for Publication] [Not for Publication]

United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit For the First Circuit
____________________

No. 94-2020

UNITED STATES,
Appellee,

v.

GERALDO RODRIGUEZ-RAMOS,
Defendant, Appellant,

No. 94-2021

UNITED STATES,
Appellee,

v.

BERLAY NIEVES-CRUZ
Defendant, Appellant,

No. 94-2063

UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.

MARIO GONZALEZ-ALVIRA,
Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________


























Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________

____________________

Gustavo A. Gelpi, Assistant Federal Public Defender, with whom _________________
Juan E. Alvarez, First Assistant Federal Public Defender and Benicio ________________ _______
Sanchez Rivera, Federal Public Defender, were on brief for appellant ______________
Rodriguez-Ramos.
Jose R. Gaztambide and Gaztambide & Plaza argued for appellant ___________________ __________________
Nieves-Cruz.
Rafael Anglada-Lopez argued for appellant Gonzalez-Alvira. ____________________
Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, Criminal _________________________
Division, with whom Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, was on _____________
brief for appellee.

____________________

____________________









































Per Curiam. These appeals present the single Per Curiam. ___________

question of whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth

Amendment bars cumulative punishments for carjacking and

using a firearm in conjunction with a crime of violence, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119 and 924(c), respectively.

Because the First Circuit has recently decided that

prosecution under both statutes does not violate the United

States Constitution, see United States v. Centeno-Torres, No. ___ _____________ ______________

94-1882, slip op. at 4 (1st Cir. Mar. 28, 1995), we summarily

affirm the judgment below. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1. ___

Affirmed. ________































-3- 3






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer