United States v. Marcial Castro

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Marcial Castro

435 F. App'x 407

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 5, 2011

Docket11-10133

StatusUnpublished

This text of 435 F. App'x 407 (United States v. Marcial Castro) 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. Marcial Castro, 435 F. App'x 407 (5th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Marcial Castro pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful reentry and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. He now appeals, arguing that the district court *408 erred by ordering that his federal sentence run consecutively to any sentence that might be imposed in a pending state criminal case. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on a waiver contained in Castro’s post-plea sentencing agreement, or for summary affirmance on the basis of binding circuit precedent. Alternatively, the Government seeks an extension of time to file a brief. Castro argues that the waiver does not bar the appeal.

We need not reach the disputed waiver issue because, as Castro concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.2006), in which we held that a district court may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively to a yet-to-be-imposed state sentence. Despite Castro’s arguments that Brown was incorrectly decided, Brown remains the law of this circuit, as we held in United States v. Setser, 607 F.3d 128, 131-32 (5th Cir.2010), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2988, 180 L.Ed. 821, 2011 WL 2297806 (2011). Although the Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari in Setser, this court is bound to follow precedent even when certiorari has been granted. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808 n. 1 (5th Cir.2008).

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motions to dismiss and, alternatively, for an extension of time are DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *408 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: *

Marcial Castro pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful reentry and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. He now appeals, arguing that the district court *408 erred by ordering that his federal sentence run consecutively to any sentence that might be imposed in a pending state criminal case. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on a waiver contained in Castro’s post-plea sentencing agreement, or for summary affirmance on the basis of binding circuit precedent. Alternatively, the Government seeks an extension of time to file a brief. Castro argues that the waiver does not bar the appeal.

We need not reach the disputed waiver issue because, as Castro concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.2006), in which we held that a district court may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively to a yet-to-be-imposed state sentence. Despite Castro’s arguments that Brown was incorrectly decided, Brown remains the law of this circuit, as we held in United States v. Setser, 607 F.3d 128, 131-32 (5th Cir.2010), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2988, 180 L.Ed. 821, 2011 WL 2297806 (2011). Although the Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari in Setser, this court is bound to follow precedent even when certiorari has been granted. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808 n. 1 (5th Cir.2008).

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motions to dismiss and, alternatively, for an extension of time are DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *408 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)

435 F. App'x 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-marcial-castro-ca5-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack