Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus MERAZ-AMADO, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Meraz-Amado, also known as Francisco Coronado-Loera, also known as Fernando Meraz-Ramirez, also known as Francisco Amado-Coronado, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-04
Citations: 117 F. App'x 370
Docket Number: Nos. 04-50316, 04-50328
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus MERAZ-AMADO, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Meraz-Amado, also known as Francisco Coronado-Loera, also known as Fernando Meraz-Ramirez, also known as Francisco Amado-Coronado, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 370–371

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus MERAZ-AMADO, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Meraz-Amado, also known as Francisco Coronado-Loera, also known as Fernando Meraz-Ramirez, also known as Francisco Amado-Coronado, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 04-50316, 04-50328.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 4, 2005.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Margaret M. Embry, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Meraz-Amado appeals his consecutive sentences following revocation of supervised release and guilty-plea conviction of possessing with intent to distribute a substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana.
Meraz-Amado argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences because the district court mistakenly believed that consecutive sentences were required under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines. However, given the colloquy at sentencing between the district court and defense counsel, the record does not support Meraz-Amado's contention that the district court misunderstood its discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925-29 (5th Cir.2001). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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.