Filed: Apr. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-10033 Document: 00513012483 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-10033 FILED Conference Calendar April 21, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FRANK MORALES, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CR-93-1 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ap
Summary: Case: 14-10033 Document: 00513012483 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-10033 FILED Conference Calendar April 21, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FRANK MORALES, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CR-93-1 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * App..
More
Case: 14-10033 Document: 00513012483 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 14-10033 FILED
Conference Calendar April 21, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
FRANK MORALES,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-93-1
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Frank Morales raises an
argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Hernandez,
633
F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2011), which held that a sentence within the statutory
maximum that is based upon judicially found facts does not violate the Sixth
Amendment. Accordingly, the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.