United States v. Daniel Enrique Marin , 419 F. App'x 946 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 29, 2011
No. 09-13398 JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-21149-CR-DMM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL ENRIQUE MARIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 29, 2011)
Before BARKETT, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Enrique Marin appeals his convictions and 96-month concurrent
sentences after a jury found him guilty of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1503, and attempted witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1512(b)(1). The jury found that, while awaiting trial on federal money
laundering and drug trafficking charges, Marin threatened his co-defendant’s
family in order to prevent his co-defendant from testifying against him. On appeal,
Marin raises seven issues pertaining to his convictions and sentences.1 We have
carefully considered the record and the parties’ arguments, and having the benefit
of oral argument, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm Marin’s
convictions and sentences. However, we remand for the limited purpose of
correcting a clerical error in the judgment; while the district court orally sentenced
Marin to two concurrent 96-month sentences, the judgment of conviction does not
reflect that two sentences were imposed concurrently.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF JUDGMENT.
1
Specifically, Marin argues that: 1) the district court improperly limited his examination
of prospective jurors during voir dire; 2) upon finding a speedy trial violation, the district court
should have dismissed the original indictment with prejudice, not without prejudice; 3) various
errors committed during trial and closing argument constituted cumulative error; 4) the district
court erroneously denied his post-trial motions for new trial and production of evidence; 5) the
district court erred in its jury instructions; 6) the evidence was insufficient to support his
convictions; and 7) the district court improperly relied on acquitted conduct at sentencing.
2