Filed: Dec. 09, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10340 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EPIFANIO BENITEZ, also known as Epi, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (97-CR-408-16) - December 9, 1999 Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant Epifanio Benitez appeals his jury-trial conviction for use of a telephone to facilitate a drug-t
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10340 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EPIFANIO BENITEZ, also known as Epi, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (97-CR-408-16) - December 9, 1999 Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant Epifanio Benitez appeals his jury-trial conviction for use of a telephone to facilitate a drug-tr..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10340
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EPIFANIO BENITEZ, also known as Epi,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(97-CR-408-16)
--------------------
December 9, 1999
Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Epifanio Benitez appeals his jury-trial
conviction for use of a telephone to facilitate a drug-trafficking
offense in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). He avers that the
district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the
indictment on speedy-trial grounds. We have reviewed the record
and the briefs on appeal and hold that the district court did not
err in denying the motion to dismiss. United States v. Bermea,
30
F.3d 1539, 1566 (5th Cir. 1994).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Benitez also argues that the district court erred in holding
him accountable for 300 pounds of marijuana. We find that the
district court’s drug-quantity calculation was not clearly
erroneous. United States v. Alford,
142 F.3d 825, 831 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied,
119 S. Ct. 514 (1998).
AFFIRMED.
2