USA v. Richard Harrimon
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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?