Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Zarate, 01-40711 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 01-40711 Visitors: 176
Filed: Jun. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40711 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODOLFO ZARATE, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-01-CR-38-1 - June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop, Rodolfo Zarate was convicted in a
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 01-40711
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RODOLFO ZARATE,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. C-01-CR-38-1
                       --------------------
                           June 18, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence

seized during a traffic stop, Rodolfo Zarate was convicted in a

bench trial for counts 1 and 2 of an indictment charging him with

transportation of illegal aliens.   Zarate has appealed the

district court's finding at sentencing that he was not entitled

to a two-level adjustment in offense level for acceptance of

responsibility.   Zarate argues that his case should be

distinguished from this court's opinion in United States v.

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 01-40711
                                  -2-

Maldonado, 
42 F.3d 906
, 913-14 (5th Cir. 1995).**     Zarate's

argument is without merit.     As in Maldonado, the dispositive

evidence in this case was the very evidence which Zarate sought

to suppress.     See 
id. at 913.
  Under Maldonado, the district

court's ruling was not "without foundation," see 
id. at 913-14,
and must be

     AFFIRMED.




     **
       Zarate also contends that Maldonado was wrongly decided
and that the issue has been raised to preserve it for en banc
consideration or for Supreme Court review.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer