Filed: Jun. 24, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: Case: 10-20097 Document: 00511150267 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 22, 2010 No. 10-20097 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. HERMAN SCOTT, also known as Herman Condo, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-166-1 Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit
Summary: Case: 10-20097 Document: 00511150267 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 22, 2010 No. 10-20097 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. HERMAN SCOTT, also known as Herman Condo, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-166-1 Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit J..
More
Case: 10-20097 Document: 00511150267 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 22, 2010
No. 10-20097
Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
HERMAN SCOTT, also known as Herman Condo,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:09-CR-166-1
Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Herman Scott raises
arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Lopez-Ortiz,
313
F.3d 225, 229-31 (5th Cir. 2002), which held that an immigration judge’s failure
to inform an alien of his eligibility for discretionary waiver of removal at his
removal proceeding did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair. See
Romero-Rodriguez v. Gonzales,
488 F.3d 672, 677 n.5 (5th Cir. 2007). The
appellant’s unopposed motion for summary disposition 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.