Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20509
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PEDRO MORENO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
--------------------
April 23, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pedro Moreno appeals following his guilty plea and sentence
to conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, 18 U.S.C. з 1956,
and operation of a continuing criminal enterprise ("CCE"), 21
U.S.C. з 848. Moreno received a sentence of life imprisonment
under the latter statute following a judicial determination that
122,081 kilograms of marijuana were attributable to him. Moreno
argues that his indictment failed to sufficiently allege drug
quantity under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
Because Moreno did not challenge the indictment or his sentence
on these grounds in the district court, this court reviews his

No. 01-20509
-2-
assertion for plain error only. See United States v. Randle, 259
F.3d 319, 321 (5th Cir. 2001).
"[A] fact used in sentencing that does not increase a
penalty beyond the statutory maximum need not be alleged in the
indictment." United States v. Keith, 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir.
2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1182 (2001). The CCE statute
authorizes imprisonment for life. See 21 U.S.C. з 848(a). As
the district court's findings regarding drug quantity did not
increase Moreno's sentence of imprisonment beyond the statutory
maximum, Moreno's Apprendi-based attack is unavailing. See
Keith, 230 F.3d at 787.
The remaining elements of Moreno's sentence, i.e., his term
of supervised release and his fine, were in no way affected by
judicial findings as to drug quantity, and thus they are not
implicated by Moreno's argument. Moreover, they do not exceed
the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. зз 3559(a)(1), 3583(b)(1);
21 U.S.C. з 848(a). Moreno has not shown plain error; indeed, he
has not shown any error at all. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.