Cases

ORDER This cause having come on to be heard upon the record, the briefs and the oral argument of the parties, and upon due consideration thereof, The court finds that no prejudicial error intervened in the judgment and proceedings in the district court, and it is there*233fore ORDERED that said judgment be and it hereby is affirmed.

STEWART, Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the granting of Ramirez-Gonzalez’s motion to suppress evidence seized at a temporary motor vehicle checkpoint. Because we conclude that the record is insufficiently developed for our review of the constitutional question raised, we VACATE and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings. FACTS </

993 F.2d 231 U.S.v.Ramirez-Gonzalez* NO. 90-4088 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. May 12, 1993 1 Appeal From: M.D.Fla. 2

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: Rigoberto Ramirez-Gonzalez pled guilty to illegal reentry following deportation. At sentencing, Ramirez-Gonzalez objected to a recommendation in the Presen-tence Investigation Report (“PSR”) that he be subject to an eight-level enhancement for having committed an “aggravated felony.” The district court agreed and sustained his objection. Ramirez-Go

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Baldomero Gonzalez-Ramirez 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). Gonzalez-Ramirez has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and th

PER CURIAM: In January 2013, Jorge Ramirez-Gonzalez was indicted for illegal re-entry into the United States in 2011 by an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2). 1 In March 2013, he pled guilty to the charge. The presentence report (“PSI”) prepared

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

HOWARD, Circuit Judge. Appellant Fernando Gonzalez-Ramirez (“Gonzalez”) was convicted of conspiring to distribute and aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison. On appeal, Gonzalez claims that the district court erred in denying his pre-trial motion for a competency hearing and in admitting certain evidence. He also asserts that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict hi

USCA1 Opinion Can't open 07-1880E.01

540 U.S. 915 RAMIREZ-GONZALEZv.UNITED STATES. No. 03-5549. Supreme Court of United States. October 6, 2003. 1 Appeal from the C. A. 5th Cir. 2 Certiorari denied. Reported below: 67

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Fermín Gonzalez-Ramirez (Gonzalez) 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). Gonzalez has filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Gonzalez’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accord

*311 OWEN, Circuit Judge: The defendant contends that a conviction for attempted kidnapping under Tennessee law is not a “crime of violence” for purposes of section 2L1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Because Tennessee’s statutory definition of kidnapping falls within the generic, contempora

PER CURIAM: * Jaime Gonzales-Ramirez’s court-appointed counsel has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Gonzalez-Ramirez has not responded to the motion. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to wit

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

MEMORANDUM * Pablo Gonzalez-Ramirez (“Gonzalez-Ramirez”), convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained through a search of his impounded minivan. He contends that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the state trooper who impounded the vehicle did not consider alternatives to impoundment. We do not rec

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.