United States v. Cruz
This text of United States v. Cruz (United States v. Cruz) 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.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-51203 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PATRICIO CRUZ, also known as Ticho,
Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-99-CR-972-1-DB -------------------- August 21, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Patricio Cruz appeals the sentence he received after this
court remanded his case to the district court for a hearing at
which the Government and he were instructed to introduce evidence
relevant to Cruz’s involvement with marijuana seized on April 13,
1999, in an incident other than the one made the basis of the
indictment. Cruz argues that the law of the case doctrine
precluded the district court from allowing the Government to
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 01-51203 -2-
introduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses at the hearing
because this court had already determined on appeal that there
was insufficient evidence to corroborate the details of the
report on which the presentence report relied.
The quantity of marijuana in the April 13 transaction was
not, however, the law of the case inasmuch as this court remanded
the issue to the district court to be determined on remand.
United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 752-53 (5th Cir. 1998).
Cruz ignores the mandate rule, which provides that a lower court
on remand must implement both the letter and the spirit of the
appellate court's mandate and may not disregard the explicit
directives of that court. Id. Given that the district court
followed the mandate of this court when it allowed the Government
to introduce evidence at the sentencing hearing, the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Cruz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cruz-ca5-2002.