Cases

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Adalid Varela-Carias 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). Vare-la-Carias has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief an

PER CURIAM: * Jose Arturo Varela appeals his 97-month sentence following his guilty plea *828conviction for one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Varela contends that his within-guidelines sentence is unreasonable. Specifically, Varela argues that the district court should have given mini

586 F.3d 1249 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Mauricio VARELA, a/k/a Mauricio Varela, a/k/a Archie Varela, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-2275. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. November 18, 2009. *1250 Leon Schydlower, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant. Teresa L. Raymond, (Gregory

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition. Before KISOR, FLINTOFT, and MOSLEY Appellate Military Judges _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Alexander S. VARELA Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

MEMORANDUM ** Marcos Corona Varela appeals his 151-month sentence imposed following a guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We remand to the sentencing court to proceed pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084

(2008) UNITED STATES of America v. Arturo VARELA-DELGADO and Grace Hernandez-Mendiola, Defendants. No. EP-07-CR-2440-PRM. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division. April 14, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT GRACE HERNANDEZ-MENDOILA'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT ARTURO VARELA-DELGADO'S MOTION TO SU

*485 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PER CURIAM: * In our previous opinion in this case, we affirmed Defendant-Appellant Varela-Medina’s conviction and sentence, and found no error in interpretation or application of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Varela-Medina, 11

PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Victor Manuel Varela-Marquez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarezr-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the jud

PER CURIAM:* Ricardo Varela argues for the first time on appeal that the aggravated felony enhancement found in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Varela concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998),

PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Victor Manuel Varela-Marquez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense, and by United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.

MEMORANDUM ** Hector Varela appeals his conviction for knowingly and intentionally importing marijuana into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, pursuant to a conditional plea agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Varela’s argument that 21 U.S.C. § 960 is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.C

MEMORANDUM ** Jose Humberto Varela-Marquez appeals his 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand. Varela-Marquez contends that his presentence report (PSR) was insufficient proof that his 1984 burglary conviction was

OPINION AND ORDER NORGLE, District Judge. Before the court are Defendants’ Motions to Suppress Post-Arrest Photographic Identifications and Any Tainted Subsequent In-Court Identifications. For the following reasons, their motions are denied. I. BACKGROUND The indictment in this case charges Defendants, Salome Varela (“Varela”), Miguel Torres (“Torres

66 F.Supp.2d 274 (1999) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Oscar VARELA-CRUZ, Defendant. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Manuel A. Martinez-Talavera; Moises Hernandez-Martinez; Elvin Martinez-Cabrera; Adrian Colon-Aviles, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Eddie S. Melendez-Melendez; Hector M. Calderon-Reyes, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Jose Arturo Lopez-Lop

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * McKAY, Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Defendant Alejand

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

898 F.2d 152 U.S.v.Varela* NO. 89-1892 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. MAR 09, 1990 1 Appeal From: W.D.Tex. 2

MITCHELL, Senior Judge: The appellant was convicted at a contested special court-martial (members) of a single offense of use of cocaine (urinalysis) and incurred an approved sentence to, inter alia, a punitive discharge. He complains to this Court that the military judge erred by not permitting trial defense counsel to offer evidence in support of the credibility of the appellant after his character for truthfulness

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

PER CURIAM: Contrary to his pleas, appellant was convicted by special court-martial of one specification of wrongful use of cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C § 912a. The members sentenced appellant to be confined for 6 months, to forfeit $400.00 pay per month for 6 months, to be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade, and to be discharged from the naval service with a bad-conduct