United States v. Noe Jaimes

446 F. App'x 713
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 21, 2011
Docket10-51149
StatusUnpublished

This text of 446 F. App'x 713 (United States v. Noe Jaimes) 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. Noe Jaimes, 446 F. App'x 713 (5th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Noe Jaimes appeals his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base. The district court sentenced Jaimes to 292 months of imprisonment.

Jaimes first argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment in light of the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act of 201, Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372. Jaimes’s voluntary and unconditional guilty plea waived any challenge to the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. See United States v. Brice, 565 F.2d 336, 337 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Sealed Appellant, 526 F.3d 241, 242 (5th Cir.2008).

Next, Jaimes contends that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on a finding that his Texas conviction for possession with intent to manufacture and deliver cocaine was a “controlled substance offense.” Jaimes correctly concedes that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Ford, 509 F.3d 714, 717 (5th Cir.2007), but he argues that Ford was wrongly decided. One panel of this court may not overrule the decision of a prior panel in the absence of en banc decision or a superseding Supreme Court decision. See United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 n. 34 (5th Cir.2002). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Related

United States v. Ford
509 F.3d 714 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Sealed
526 F.3d 241 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Terry Lucas Brice, Jr.
565 F.2d 336 (Fifth Circuit, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
446 F. App'x 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-noe-jaimes-ca5-2011.