United States v. Bueno Garcia

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided December 10, 2024·No. 24-50554·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-50554 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50554 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ December 10, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jorge Alejandro Bueno Garcia,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:22-CR-1659-1 ______________________________

Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jorge Alejandro Bueno Garcia appeals his multiple convictions and sentences for the simultaneous possession of two firearms. He argues that the convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because simultaneous possession of several firearms is a single offense under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The Government agrees. See United States v. Berry, 977 F.2d 915, 919 (5th

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-50554 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2024

No. 24-50554

Cir. 1992) (“The evil Congress sought to suppress by section 922 was the arming of felons; the section is based on the status of the offender and not the number of guns possessed.”). The fact that the district court ordered Bueno Garcia’s sentences to run concurrently does not change this result. See id. at 920. Accordingly, we VACATE Bueno Garcia’s sentences and REMAND for dismissal of one of the § 922(g) convictions and for resentencing.

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

United States v. Bueno Garcia, (5th Cir. 2024).

United States v. Bueno Garcia (United States v. Bueno Garcia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. James Berry, Jr.
977 F.2d 915 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)