Filed: Sep. 02, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 2, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-11225 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCISCO JAVIER FUENTES-VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-3-ALL - Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Francisco Javier
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 2, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-11225 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCISCO JAVIER FUENTES-VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-3-ALL - Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Francisco Javier F..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 2, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-11225
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO JAVIER FUENTES-VILLARREAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:00-CR-3-ALL
--------------------
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Francisco Javier Fuentes-Villarreal was convicted of one
charge of illegal reentry into the United States. The district
court sentenced him to 88 months in prison and a three-year term
of supervised release. Fuentes-Villarreal argues on appeal that
the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the
indictment based on an alleged violation of his Sixth Amendment
right to a speedy trial.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-11225
-2-
Fuentes-Villarreal has not shown that the district court
erred in denying his motion. Fuentes-Villarreal has not shown
that he is entitled to a presumption of prejudice in connection
with the delay between his indictment and prosecution, nor has he
shown actual prejudice arising from this delay. See United
States v. Serna-Villarreal,
352 F.3d 225, 230 (5th Cir. 2003),
cert. denied,
124 S. Ct. 1896 (2004). Accordingly, the district
court’s denial of Fuentes-Villarreal’s motion to dismiss is
AFFIRMED.