Filed: Dec. 16, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40241 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROGER VICTOR ALPUCHE-MIRANDA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-98-CR-482-ALL - - - - - - - - - - December 15, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Roger Victor Alpuche-Miranda (“Alpuche”) appeals his conviction for
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40241 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROGER VICTOR ALPUCHE-MIRANDA, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-98-CR-482-ALL - - - - - - - - - - December 15, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Roger Victor Alpuche-Miranda (“Alpuche”) appeals his conviction for i..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40241
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROGER VICTOR ALPUCHE-MIRANDA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-98-CR-482-ALL
- - - - - - - - - -
December 15, 1999
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roger Victor Alpuche-Miranda (“Alpuche”) appeals his
conviction for illegal re-entry into the United States, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court dismissed
Alpuche’s first indictment without prejudice as a violation of
the Speedy Trial Act, but he was re-indicted five days later. He
then entered a conditional guilty plea that permitted him to
appeal the Speedy Trial Act ruling.
Alpuche conclusionally argues that the dismissal of the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-40241
-2-
first indictment should have been a dismissal with prejudice and
suggests that the Government cannot “disregard the Speedy Trial
Act by simply re-indicting a defendant.” He is incorrect. The
Speedy Trial Act explicitly provides for the possibility of
“reprosecution” in the event of a dismissal without prejudice.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(1), (a)(2). The district court did not
abuse its discretion in dismissing the first indictment without
prejudice and in permitting re-indictment. See United States v.
Blevins,
142 F.3d 223, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly,
Alpuche’s conviction is AFFIRMED.