Filed: Dec. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-41042 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUAN MUNOZ-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-01-CR-463-2 - December 11, 2002 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Juan Munoz-Mendoza (Munoz) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for transporting an illegal alien. His brief does no
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-41042 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUAN MUNOZ-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-01-CR-463-2 - December 11, 2002 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Juan Munoz-Mendoza (Munoz) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for transporting an illegal alien. His brief does not..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41042
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN MUNOZ-MENDOZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-01-CR-463-2
--------------------
December 11, 2002
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Munoz-Mendoza (Munoz) appeals his guilty-plea
conviction and sentence for transporting an illegal alien. His
brief does not comply with FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A), as he
provides no legal arguments in support of his claims, and the
issues should therefore be deemed abandoned. See United States
v. Tomblin,
46 F.3d 1369, 1376 n.13 (5th Cir. 1995). To the
extent that Munoz contends that the district court erred in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-41042
-2-
denying him credit for acceptance of responsibility, he has not
shown that the district court clearly erred in denying the
benefit. See United States v. Cano-Guel,
167 F.3d 900, 906 (5th
Cir. 1999); United States v. Wilder,
15 F.3d 1292, 1299 (5th Cir.
1994). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.