Filed: Jul. 11, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-50186 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ORLANDO ZUNIGA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 92-CR-296-3 - - - - - - - - - - July 1, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Orlando Zuniga argues that his sentence for conspiracy to possess and distribute more than 10
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-50186 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ORLANDO ZUNIGA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 92-CR-296-3 - - - - - - - - - - July 1, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Orlando Zuniga argues that his sentence for conspiracy to possess and distribute more than 100..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-50186
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ORLANDO ZUNIGA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 92-CR-296-3
- - - - - - - - - -
July 1, 1996
Before KING, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Orlando Zuniga argues that his sentence for conspiracy to
possess and distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana is
clearly erroneous because the quantity of drugs on which his
sentence is based (1) was not reasonably foreseeable to Zuniga
and (2) is not supported by specific factual findings. He also
argues that the district court's finding that Zuniga obstructed
justice is clearly erroneous. Having reviewed the record and
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
authorities, we AFFIRM. See United States v. Fields,
72 F.3d
1200, 1215 & n.67 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed,
64
U.S.L.W. 3709 (Apr. 8, 1996) (No. 95-1639); United States v.
Puig-Infante,
19 F.3d 929, 943 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.
Ct. 180 (1994).
AFFIRMED.
2