USA v. Marcos Uribe-Nava, No. 14-10069 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-10069 Document: 00512775499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 14-10069 Summary Calendar September 19, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MARCOS URIBE-NAVA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CR-171-1 Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marcos Uribe-Nava appeals the revocation of his probation and the sentence imposed upon revocation, challenging the validity of the transfer of jurisdiction from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of Texas. See 18 U.S.C. ยง 3605. Uribe-Nava argues that the United States District Court for the Northern District lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate violations of his probation committed prior to the Northern District s Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 14-10069 Document: 00512775499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2014 No. 14-10069 acceptance of jurisdiction over his probation imposed in 2008 in the Western District. Conceding that his arguments are foreclosed by this court s decision in United States v. Fernandez, 379 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2004), he contends that Fernandez was incorrectly decided, and he raises the issue to preserve it for further review. As Uribe-Nava concedes, whatever their merit, his arguments challenging the transfer of jurisdiction from the Western District to the Northern District are foreclosed by Fernandez. See Fernandez, 379 F.3d at 272-77. As Uribe-Nava further concedes, one panel of this court may not overrule the decision of another absent an en banc or superseding Supreme Court decision. See United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 n.34 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the Government s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
