United States vs. Rodriguez-Aguirre, No. 06-2117 (10th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit November 2, 2006 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER IC A , P l a in t i f f - A p p e ll e e , No. 06-2117 ( D .C . N o . C R - 9 2 - 4 8 6 J C ) ( D i s tr ic t o f N e w M e x i c o ) v. GA BRIEL RODR IGU EZAGUIRRE, D efendant - A ppellant. ORDER AND JUDGM ENT* B e f o r e K E L L Y , H E N R Y a n d T Y M K O V I C H , C i r c u it J u d g e s . A f te r e x a m i n i n g t h e b r i e f s a n d a p p e l l a te r e c o rd , t h i s p a n e l h a s d e te r m i n e d u n a n im o u s l y t h a t o r a l a r g u m e n t w o u l d n o t m a te r i a ll y a s s i s t t h e d e t e r m i n a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; 1 0 t h C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 ( G ) . T h e c a s e i s t h e r e f o r e o r d e r e d s u b m i t te d w i t h o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l f r o m a n o r d e r o f th e d is t r i c t c o u r t d e n yi n g t h e * T h i s o r d e r a n d ju d g m e n t i s n o t b i n d i n g p r e c e d e n t, e x c e p t u n d e r t h e d o c t r in e s o f l a w o f t h e c a s e , r e s j u d i c a t a a n d c o l la t e r a l e s t o p p e l . T h e c o u r t g e n e ra ll y d i s f a v o rs t h e c it a ti o n o f o r d e r s a n d ju d g m e n ts ; n e v e rt h e le s s , a n o r d e r a n d j u d g m e n t m a y b e c i te d u n d e r t h e t e r m s a n d c o n d i ti o n s o f 1 0 t h C i r. R . 36.3. d e f e n d a n t s E x P a r t e M o t i o n R e q u e s t i n g T h a t F i n e P a ym e n t s B e P a i d D i r e c t T o T h e C o u r t . W e a f f i r m . I n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , th e d e f e n d a n t r e q u e s t e d t h a t h e b e a l l o w e d t o m a k e h i s q u a r t e r l y p a ym e n t s d i r e c t l y t o t h e c o u r t b e c a u s e h e i s u n a b l e t o w o r k i n p r i s o n b e c a u s e o f m e d i c a l r e s t r i c ti o n s . T h e d is t r i c t c o u r t d e n ie d th e motion. O n a p p e a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t c h a ll e n g e s t h e im p o s i t i o n o f a f o u r m i l l i o n d o l la r f i n e a s p a r t o f h i s s e n t e n c e . B e c a u s e h e d i d n o t ra i s e t h i s i s s u e b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , w e w i l l n o t a d d r e s s i t . A b s e n t c o m p e l l in g r e a s o n s , [ t h i s c o u r t w i l l ] n o t c o n s i d e r a r g u m e n ts t h a t w e r e n o t p r e s e n te d to t h e d is t r i c t court. C row v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th C ir. 1994). This rule a p p l i e s i n c ri m in a l a s w e ll a s c iv il a p p e a ls . S e e U n i t e d S ta t e s v . E a s t t e a m , 4 2 6 F . 3 d 1 3 0 1 , 1 3 0 3 n . 2 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( B e c a u s e th i s a r g u m e n t w a s n o t p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d , w e w i l l n o t a d d r e s s i t o n a p p e a l . ) ( c it i n g t o C r o w ) . T h e r e is n o r e a s o n p r e s e n t h e r e to d e v ia te f r o m t h i s g e n e ra l r u l e . T h e d e f e n d a n t h a d a m p l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c h a ll e n g e th e im p o s i t i o n o f th e f in e b o t h i n h is d ir e c t a p p e a l a n d in h is § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . A F F I R M E D . T h e g o v e r n m e n t s m o t io n t o d i s m i s s is D E N I E D . E n t e r e d f o r th e C o u r t Per C uriam

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.