USA v. Ronald Hernandez, No. 09-11221 (5th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-11221 Document: 00511450550 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-11221 Conference Calendar April 19, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RONALD HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-72-1 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Ronald Hernandez raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1920 (2010), which reaffirmed the holding in United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir. 2003), that knowledge of drug type and quantity is not an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841. He also raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir. 1991), abrogated on * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-11221 Document: 00511450550 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2011 No. 09-11221 other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that a district court may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively with an unimposed state sentence. Finally, Hernandez raises arguments that he acknowledges are foreclosed by United States v. London, 568 F.3d 553, 564 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 631 (2010). The Supreme Court adopted the position advanced in London. See Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18, 23 (2010) (holding that a defendant is subject to a mandatory, consecutive sentence for a conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) even if the defendant received a higher mandatory minimum on a different count of conviction). The Government s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 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.
