United States v. Esquivel-Guillen, 04-11501 (2005)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 04-11501
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 08, 2005
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 July 8, 2005 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-11501 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. ARTURO ESQUIVEL-GUILLEN Defendant - Appellant - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas - Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to vacate sentence is GRA
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 8, 2005 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-11501 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. ARTURO ESQUIVEL-GUILLEN Defendant - Appellant - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas - Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to vacate sentence is GRAN..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 8, 2005 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-11501 _____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. ARTURO ESQUIVEL-GUILLEN Defendant - Appellant --------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas --------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to vacate sentence is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to remand case for resentencing is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to extend time to file appellant’s brief is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. 1 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Source: CourtListener
