United States v. Perales

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 19, 2000
Docket99-50094
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Perales (United States v. Perales) 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. Perales, (5th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50094 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

STEVIE LEE PERALES,

Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-98-CR-85-(1) _________________________________________ June 9, 2000

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Stevie Lee Perales appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being

a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Perales argues

that the district court clearly erred in finding that he was not entitled to an adjustment

for acceptance of responsibility and erred in failing to admonish him at the guilty-plea hearing that his federal sentence could be ordered to be served consecutively to his

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. state sentence for a parole revocation. Given that Perales did not admit possession of the firearms to the probation

officer, he did not make any statement of remorse of contrition, and the deference to

be afforded the district court’s assessment of credibility, Perales has failed to show that the district court clearly erred in refusing to award his an adjustment for acceptance of

responsibility.1 The district court did not err in failing to admonish Perales at the guilty-

plea hearing that the sentence could be ordered to be served consecutively to a state

sentence.2 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1 United States v. Nevarez-Arreola, 885 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1989). 2 United States v. Saldana, 505 F.2d 628 (5th Cir. 1974). 2

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

Related

United States v. Francisco Nevarez-Arreola
885 F.2d 243 (Fifth Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Saldana
505 F.2d 628 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Perales, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-perales-ca5-2000.