US v. Nieves Cruz
Case Date: 03/31/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-2020
|
March 31, 1995 [Not for Publication] [Not for Publication] United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit For the First Circuit ____________________ No. 94-2020 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. GERALDO RODRIGUEZ-RAMOS, Defendant, Appellant, No. 94-2021 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. BERLAY NIEVES-CRUZ Defendant, Appellant, No. 94-2063 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. MARIO GONZALEZ-ALVIRA, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________ and Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________ ____________________ Gustavo A. Gelpi, Assistant Federal Public Defender, with whom _________________ Juan E. Alvarez, First Assistant Federal Public Defender and Benicio ________________ _______ Sanchez Rivera, Federal Public Defender, were on brief for appellant ______________ Rodriguez-Ramos. Jose R. Gaztambide and Gaztambide & Plaza argued for appellant ___________________ __________________ Nieves-Cruz. Rafael Anglada-Lopez argued for appellant Gonzalez-Alvira. ____________________ Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, Criminal _________________________ Division, with whom Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, was on _____________ brief for appellee. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. These appeals present the single Per Curiam. ___________ question of whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars cumulative punishments for carjacking and using a firearm in conjunction with a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119 and 924(c), respectively. Because the First Circuit has recently decided that prosecution under both statutes does not violate the United States Constitution, see United States v. Centeno-Torres, No. ___ _____________ ______________ 94-1882, slip op. at 4 (1st Cir. Mar. 28, 1995), we summarily affirm the judgment below. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1. ___ Affirmed. ________ -3- 3 |