United States v. Herman C. Alonzo, A/K/A Roland Alonzo

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Herman C. Alonzo, A/K/A Roland Alonzo

600 F.2d 16, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12719

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 1979

Docket79-1324

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 600 F.2d 16 (United States v. Herman C. Alonzo, A/K/A Roland Alonzo) 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. Herman C. Alonzo, A/K/A Roland Alonzo, 600 F.2d 16, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12719 (5th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Herman Alonzo appeals the order of the district court denying his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence. We affirm.

Alonzo was convicted on nine counts of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and distribution of cocaine. He received a ten-year sentence. According to his brief, Alonzo “ moved to reduce his sentence to conform to the sentences of his co-defendants.” He has not challenged the legality of his sentence or the procedures that the district court followed in imposing it. The sentence was well within the statutory limit and Alonzo has not shown that the trial judge abused his discretion. Therefore, we affirm the order of the district court denying appellant’s Rule 35 motion. See United States v. Hayes, 5 Cir., 1979, 589 F.2d 811, 826-27.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Herman Alonzo appeals the order of the district court denying his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence. We affirm.

Alonzo was convicted on nine counts of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and distribution of cocaine. He received a ten-year sentence. According to his brief, Alonzo “ moved to reduce his sentence to conform to the sentences of his co-defendants.” He has not challenged the legality of his sentence or the procedures that the district court followed in imposing it. The sentence was well within the statutory limit and Alonzo has not shown that the trial judge abused his discretion. Therefore, we affirm the order of the district court denying appellant’s Rule 35 motion. See United States v. Hayes, 5 Cir., 1979, 589 F.2d 811, 826-27.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

600 F.2d 16, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-herman-c-alonzo-aka-roland-alonzo-ca5-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack