Filed: Oct. 05, 2006
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 October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41206 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUAN MANUEL GONZALEZ-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-713-1 - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the J
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41206 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUAN MANUEL GONZALEZ-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-713-1 - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Ju..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 5, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41206
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN MANUEL GONZALEZ-CASTILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:04-CR-713-1
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Manuel
Gonzalez-Castillo raises arguments that are foreclosed by Dixon
v. United States,
126 S. Ct. 2437, 2442-48 (2006), which held
that the district court’s jury instruction placing the burden on
the defendant to establish the defense of duress by preponderance
of the evidence did not violate the Due Process Clause. The
Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.