USA v. Richard Harrimon


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-10536 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 03/03/2011 for Appellant Richard Ray Harrimon; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [6647321-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [6647321-4]; denying motion to dismiss appeal filed by Appellee USA [6647321-3] [10-10536]

Download PDF
Case: 10-10536 Document: 00511378011 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-10536 Summary Calendar February 10, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RICHARD RAY HARRIMON, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:07-CR-17-1 Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* On appeal, Richard Ray Harrimon argues that the district court erred in finding that his prior convictions for evading arrest by vehicle were qualifying violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. However, he correctly concedes that this argument is foreclosed under the law of the case doctrine and that he raises the issue only to preserve it for further review. See United States v. Agofsky, 516 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-10536 Document: 00511378011 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2011 No. 10-10536 AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motions to dismiss the appeal and for an extension of time to file a brief are DENIED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?