Filed: Mar. 14, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 14, 2008 No. 07-10387 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ARTHUR J. MUHAMMAD, also known as Arthur James Jordan Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-98-ALL Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Arthur J. Muhammad appe
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 14, 2008 No. 07-10387 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ARTHUR J. MUHAMMAD, also known as Arthur James Jordan Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-98-ALL Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Arthur J. Muhammad appea..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 14, 2008
No. 07-10387
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ARTHUR J. MUHAMMAD, also known as Arthur James Jordan
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-98-ALL
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arthur J. Muhammad appeals the sentences imposed by the district court
on remand. Muhammad argues on appeal that his plea was involuntary and
that the district court erred in calculating the amount of loss. Because
Muhammad could have raised these issues in his first appeal but he failed to do
so, he has waived it. See United States v. Castillo,
179 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir.
1999), rev'd on other grounds,
530 U.S. 120 (2000).
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-10387
The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and its
alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. The
district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2