United States v. Jori
This text of United States v. Jori (United States v. Jori) 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. 98-20974 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALFREDO PAYAN JORI, also known as José Valoi, also known as Raul Caicedo,
Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CR-67-10 --------------------
August 26, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alfredo Payan Jori, also known as José Raul Valoi, (“Valoi”)
appeals from his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of
violations of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(a)(1). He argues that
the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1) by failing
to resolve the controversy over whether he possessed a gun during
the commission of the crime to which he pleaded. This contention
lacks merit, as the district court resolved this controversy when
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 98-20974 -2-
it adopted the presentence report. The district court did not
err in adopting the report. See United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d
940, 943 (5th Cir. 1990). Further, this issue was properly
raised by Valoi for the first time in this appeal. See United
States v. Manotas-Mejia, 824 F.2d 360, 368 (5th Cir 1987).
Valoi also argues that the district court erred by applying
a two-level enhancement to his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(b)(1). Because the gun and the drugs were both found in
the townhome, their connection to the crime was not clearly
improbable. See United States v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 271, 278 (5th
Cir. 1994); § 2D1.1, comment. (n.3). The district court did not
err in applying the enhancement.
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. Jori, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jori-ca5-1999.