Filed: Aug. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41271 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ERICK MAURICIO CHAVEZ-AREVALO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-98-CR-179-3 - August 24, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Erick Mauricio Chavez-Arevalo appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to possession of marijuana w
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41271 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ERICK MAURICIO CHAVEZ-AREVALO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-98-CR-179-3 - August 24, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Erick Mauricio Chavez-Arevalo appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to possession of marijuana wi..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41271
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ERICK MAURICIO CHAVEZ-AREVALO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-98-CR-179-3
--------------------
August 24, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Erick Mauricio Chavez-Arevalo appeals his sentence following
a guilty plea to possession of marijuana with intent to
distribute. Chavez argues that the district court’s
determination that he possessed a firearm during the commission
of the offense is clearly erroneous. Having reviewed the record
and the briefs of the parties, we find no error and AFFIRM. See
United States v. Ramos,
71 F.3d 1150, 1157-58 (5th Cir. 1995);
United States v. Edwards,
65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 1995).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No.
-2-
AFFIRMED.