United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez

87 F. App'x 425

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 17, 2004

Docket03-40902

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 87 F. App'x 425 (United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez) 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. Hernandez-Hernandez, 87 F. App'x 425 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Valentine Hernandez-Hernandez (Hernandez) appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez challenges a condition of supervised release set forth in the written *426 judgment that prohibits him from possessing “any other dangerous weapon.” Hernandez argues that this provision must be deleted from the written judgment because the district court did not mention the condition when it orally pronounced sentence. We find no error in the written judgment. See United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 937-38 (5th Cir.2003).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

PER CURIAM. *

Valentine Hernandez-Hernandez (Hernandez) appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez challenges a condition of supervised release set forth in the written *426 judgment that prohibits him from possessing “any other dangerous weapon.” Hernandez argues that this provision must be deleted from the written judgment because the district court did not mention the condition when it orally pronounced sentence. We find no error in the written judgment. See United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 937-38 (5th Cir.2003).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 F. App'x 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hernandez-hernandez-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack