United States v. Ramirez, 01-10784 (2002)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 01-10784
Visitors: 26
Filed: Sep. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-10784 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JORGE A RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:01-CR-44-1-R) _ September 17, 2002 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* We hold: (1) the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find Ramirez’ statement that he would make the home he purchased through HUD his p
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-10784 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JORGE A RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:01-CR-44-1-R) _ September 17, 2002 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* We hold: (1) the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find Ramirez’ statement that he would make the home he purchased through HUD his pr..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-10784 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JORGE A RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:01-CR-44-1-R) __________________________________________________________________ September 17, 2002 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* We hold: (1) the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find Ramirez’ statement that he would make the home he purchased through HUD his primary home for three years was false when made; (2) the district court did not commit reversible plain error by allowing the Government’s examination of Agent Gilbert, who was called as an adverse witness by Ramirez; and (3) the district court did not commit clear error in assessing a two level enhancement for “more than minimal planning”. Accordingly, the judgment is 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Source: CourtListener
