Filed: Feb. 26, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-20284 (Summary Calendar) _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HECTOR FABIO RUEDA-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. CR-H-94-60-14) - - - - - - - - - - February 14, 1996 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Hector Fabio Rueda-Acosta appeals his conviction for possessing cocaine with
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-20284 (Summary Calendar) _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HECTOR FABIO RUEDA-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. CR-H-94-60-14) - - - - - - - - - - February 14, 1996 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Hector Fabio Rueda-Acosta appeals his conviction for possessing cocaine with t..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________ No. 95-20284 (Summary Calendar) __________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HECTOR FABIO RUEDA-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. CR-H-94-60-14) - - - - - - - - - - February 14, 1996 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Hector Fabio Rueda-Acosta appeals his conviction for possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it, arguing that a search was unlawful. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order denying the motion to suppress, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the same reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Rueda- Acosta, No. CR-H-94-60-14 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 1994). 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 * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
