United States v. Aaron

110 F. App'x 421
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 13, 2004
Docket03-11333
StatusUnpublished

This text of 110 F. App'x 421 (United States v. Aaron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Aaron, 110 F. App'x 421 (5th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Anthony Lee Aaron appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for manufacturing counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes. He argues that, because the counterfeit notes at issue were “so obviously counterfeit that they [were] unlikely to be accepted even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny,” the district court should not have increased his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2B5.1(b)(2)(A) and (b)(3). This court reviews “the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Wyjack, 141 F.3d 181, 183 (5th Cir.1998).

Reviewing the evidence in light of the multi-factor test set forth in Wyjack, 141 F.3d at 184, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err when determining that the counterfeit notes at issue were not “obviously counterfeit” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(2)(A). See United States v. Bollman, 141 F.3d 184, 186-87 (5th Cir.1998). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Bollman
141 F.3d 184 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Wyjack
141 F.3d 181 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 F. App'x 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-aaron-ca5-2004.