United States v. Caminero
United States v. Caminero
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 97-10205 Summary Calendar __________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NELSON CAMINERO,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:90-CR-128-R - - - - - - - - - - January 7, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nelson Caminero appeals his convictions for conspiracy to
distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in
violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846, and for possession with intent to
distribute cocaine in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
He contends that 1) there was insufficient evidence to support
his convictions, 2) the district court erroneously concluded that
it lacked the authority to depart downward from the Guidelines
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, 3) the district court abused its
discretion in refusing to allow him to plead guilty, 4) the
district court plainly erred in failing to reduce his sentence
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility,
and 5) the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary
hearing on his “Motion to Enforce Plea Bargain Agreement” filed
prior to trial.
Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities
convinces us that no reversible error was committed. The
evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Caminero
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Casel,
995 F.2d 1299, 1306(5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Eakes,
783 F.2d 499, 404-06(5th Cir. 1986). The district court did not err
in failing to make a § 5K1.1 departure on its own motion. See
United States v. Price,
95 F.3d 364, 368(5th Cir. 1996). The
district court did not abuse its “broad discretion” in rejecting
Caminero’s guilty plea. See United States v. Wild,
92 F.3d 304, 309(5th Cir.), cert. denied,
117 S. Ct. 532(1996). The court
did not plainly err in failing to reduce his sentence for
acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Maldonado,
42 F.3d 906, 913(5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not abuse
its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. See
United States v. Dean,
100 F.3d 19, 21(5th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished