Filed: Feb. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-50303 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUAN JOSE PEREZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-00-CR-9-1 - - - - - - - - - - February 13, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Juan Jose Perez-Gonzalez appeals the sentence from his guilty-plea convic
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-50303 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUAN JOSE PEREZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-00-CR-9-1 - - - - - - - - - - February 13, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Juan Jose Perez-Gonzalez appeals the sentence from his guilty-plea convict..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50303
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN JOSE PEREZ-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-00-CR-9-1
- - - - - - - - - -
February 13, 2001
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Jose Perez-Gonzalez appeals the sentence from his
guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States
following deportation. He argues that the district court erred
in failing to grant a more extensive downward departure from the
Sentencing Guidelines. The record does not indicate that the
district court believed that it lacked the authority to grant
such a departure. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider
this issue. See United States v. Yanez-Huerta,
207 F.3d 746, 748
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-50303
-2-
(5th Cir.), cert. denied,
121 S. Ct. 432 (2000); see also United
States v. Alvarez,
51 F.3d 36, 39 (5th Cir. 1995).
Perez-Gonzalez also raises three issues for the first time
in his appellate reply brief. We do not consider issues raised
in such a manner. See United States v. Prince,
868 F.2d 1379,
1386 (5th Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.