Filed: Jul. 14, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-20574 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FELIX HERNANDEZ-PEDRAZA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-389-3 - July 12, 2000 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Felix Hernandez-Pedraza appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to transport illegal a
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-20574 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FELIX HERNANDEZ-PEDRAZA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-389-3 - July 12, 2000 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Felix Hernandez-Pedraza appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to transport illegal al..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20574
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FELIX HERNANDEZ-PEDRAZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CR-389-3
--------------------
July 12, 2000
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Felix Hernandez-Pedraza appeals from a judgment entered
after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to transport illegal
aliens. He argues that the Government presented insufficient
evidence to support the conclusion that he knew the aliens were
in the United States illegally. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Viewed in the light most favorable to
the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
See United States v. Shabazz,
993 F.2d 431, 441 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.