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
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 U..
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.