Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Villapando-Gonzalez, 01-40944 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 01-40944 Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40944 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMIE ADAN VILLAPANDO-GONZALEZ, also known as Jaime Adan Villalpando-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-01-CR-94-ALL - August 20, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jaime Adan Villapando-Gonzalez was convicted for violating 8
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 01-40944
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMIE ADAN VILLAPANDO-GONZALEZ,
also known as Jaime Adan Villalpando-Gonzalez,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. L-01-CR-94-ALL
                        --------------------
                           August 20, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Jaime Adan Villapando-Gonzalez was convicted for violating

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and has appealed his sentence.     Villapando

contends that the district court erred by refusing to depart

downward under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, on the ground that his criminal

history score overrepresented the seriousness of his criminal

conduct.   It is clear from the district court’s statements at the

sentencing hearing that it did not misapprehend whether it had


     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 01-40944
                                -2-

the authority to depart.   Instead, it determined that a departure

was not warranted under the facts of this case.   Because this

court does not have jurisdiction to review that determination,

see United States v. Thames, 
214 F.3d 608
, 612 (5th Cir. 2000),

the appeal must be dismissed.

     APPEAL DISMISSED.

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