United States v. Gonzalez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided October 31, 2002·No. 01-41057·Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41057 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICARDO GONZALEZ, also known as Juan Jorge De Hoyos,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-00-CR-448-01 -------------------- October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ricardo Gonzalez appeals his conviction and sentence after

his guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).

Gonzalez’s challenges to his conviction are based on the

constitutionality of § 922(g) and the sufficiency of the factual

basis for the plea. Gonzalez concedes that these arguments are

foreclosed and that they are being raised to preserve them for

possible Supreme Court review. Gonzalez’s arguments challenging

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 01-41057 -2-

his conviction are indeed foreclosed. See United States

v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied,

122 S. Ct. 1113 (2002); United States v. Kuban, 94 F.3d 971, 973

(5th Cir. 1996); and United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43

(5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Gonzalez’s conviction and sentence

are AFFIRMED.

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

United States v. Gonzalez, (5th Cir. 2002).

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

Related

United States v. Rawls
85 F.3d 240 (Fifth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Kuban
94 F.3d 971 (Fifth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Daugherty
264 F.3d 513 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)