United States v. Mira-Londono

132 F. App'x 262
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedMay 19, 2005
DocketNo. 04-14553; D.C. Docket No. 04-20194-CR-JAL
StatusPublished

This text of 132 F. App'x 262 (United States v. Mira-Londono) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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. Mira-Londono, 132 F. App'x 262 (11th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Wilson Dario Mira-Londono appeals his 58-month sentence for importation of 100 grams of more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(b)(2). On appeal, Mira-Londono argues that he should have been given a two-level minor-role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, contending that, as a courier, he played a minor role relative to other participants in the drug-smuggling conspiracy.

In his initial brief, Mira-Londono also raised a challenge to his sentence based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). In his reply brief, however, Mira-Londono expressly withdrew that issue from our consideration. Therefore, we express no opinion on the merits of that claim, and we do not consider the application of United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), to this appeal. See United States v. Lebovitz, 401 F.3d 1263, 1265 n. 1 (11th Cir.2005). We otherwise find no reversible error.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

United States v. David Lebovitz
401 F.3d 1263 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 F. App'x 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mira-londono-ca11-2005.