Cases

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 17-1161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. LUIS DANIEL BENÍTEZ-BELTRÁN, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Aida M. Delgado-Colón, U.S. District Judge]

RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge: After a jury convicted Benitez Auguarius Moody of federal drug and firearm offenses, he sought an evidentiary hearing to challenge a facially sufficient search warrant affidavit. Such hearings are called " Franks hearings," named for the Supreme Court's decision permitting them in Franks v. Delaware ,

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Nicolas Benitez-Torres has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Benitez-Torres has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief, Benitez-Torres’ response, and t

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Antonio Benitez-Garcia (Benitez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18, L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *400United States v. Flores, 682 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Benitez h

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Od-ilon Benitez-Penaloza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Benitez-Penaloza has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions

PER CURIAM: * Jerovan Benitez appeals the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. He contends the district court erred in failing to reduce his sentencing offense level for acceptance of responsibility. Benitez asserts that his alleged denial of involvement with the transportation of cocaine was an error

613 F.Supp.2d 1099 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Bernardo Perez BENITEZ, Defendant. No. 1:08-cr-00049. United States District Court, S.D. Iowa. May 12, 2009. *1100 B. John Burns, III, Federal Public Defenders Office, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant. Rachel J. Scherle, United States Attorney's Office, Des Moi

531 F.3d 711 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Misael BENITEZ, also known as Benitez Arguello Paulo, Appellant. No. 06-3763. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: January 29, 2008. Filed: July 15, 2008. *713 Jane C. Hogan, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

BRAND, Judge: In accordance with his pleas, the appellant was convicted of one specification of larceny, and six specifications of selling stolen nonmilitary property, in violation of Articles 121 and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 921, 934. His approved sentence consists of a bad-eonduet discharge, confinement for 2 months, and reduction to E-l. We have reviewed the record of trial, the assignment of errors, and t

570 F.3d 364 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Salvi Rafael BENITEZ-AVILA, Defendant, Appellant. No. 08-1463. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard March 6, 2009. Decided June 9, 2009. *365 José C. Romo Matienzo, for appellant. Germán A. Rieckehoff, Assistant United States Attorn

PER CURIAM:* Isael Benitez-Benitez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Benitez-Benitez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Benitez-Benite

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Gabriel Benitez-Villafuerte has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Benitez-Villafuerte has not filed a response to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Acc

OPINION PER CURIAM. Following a jury trial, Carlos Benitez was convicted of being an inmate in possession of a prohibited object (marijuana), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2) (2000). The district court sentenced Benitez to fifty-one months of imprisonment, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Benitez’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. Californ

650 F.3d 1157 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jesus BENITEZ-DE LOS SANTOS, also known as Ruben Salina-Castro, Appellant. No. 10-3263. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: May 13, 2011. Filed: August 18, 2011. *1158 Richard Haile McWilliams, AFPD, Omaha, NE, for Appellant. <

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Gabriel Benitez-Villafuerte has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Benitez-Villafuerte has not filed a response to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Acc

MEMORANDUM ** Isabel Benitez-Beltran appeals his 121-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We remand for resentencing. Benitez-Beltran contends that he is entitled to a remand for resentencing. Because Benitez-Beltran

PER CURIAM: * Ruben Aristides Benitez-Delgado (Benitez) appeals his conviction and 24-month sentence for illegal reentry by an alien after deportation. He argues that the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jer *685sey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

*724MEMORANDUM * Francisco Benitez-Valenzuela challenges his convictions for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argues that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence because border patrol agents allegedly de

PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alfonso Benitez-Rodriguez raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Scroggins, 411 F.3d 572, 576-77 (5th Cir.2005), which held that the Due Process Clause does not bar the application of Justice Breyer’s remedy opinion in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), when resentenci

ORDER Mandate shall be stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Vonn, 224 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir.2000), cert. granted, 531 U.S. 1189, 121 S.Ct. 1185, 149 L.Ed.2d 102 (Feb. 26, 2001) (No. 00-973). MEMORANDUM1 The district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(2) by accepting Benitez’s guilty plea witho