Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moses C. SALDUA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-10
Citations: 120 F. App'x 553
Docket Number: No. 04-40852
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moses C. SALDUA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 553–554

Head Matter:
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.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.