Case ID: f-appx_120/html/0553-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moses C. SALDUA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-40852.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 10, 2005.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H Michael Sokolow, Jason Bradford Libby, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Moses C. Saldua appeals his guilty-plea convictions for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), contending the convictions are multiplicitous and violate double jeopardy. The Government does not seek to rely on Saldua’s claimed waiver of appeal; therefore, this court will not enforce it. See United States v. Rhodes, 253 F.3d 800, 804 (5th Cir.2001).

As the Government concedes, simultaneous convictions and sentences for the same criminal act involving possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition violate double jeopardy. United States v. Berry, 977 F.2d 915, 919 (5th Cir.1992). The district court’s ordering Saldua’s sentences to run concurrently does not change this result. Id. at 920; United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723, 729 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1157, 116 S.Ct. 1547, 134 L.Ed.2d 650 (1996). Accordingly, we VACATE Saldua’s sentences and REMAND for dismissal of one of the duplicitous convictions, at the election of the Government, and for resentencing.

VACATED AND REMANDED 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.