You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Sefren

Citation: 216 F. App'x 435Docket: Nos. 06-50776, 06-50797

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; February 6, 2007; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Janeen Avis Sefren and Samuel William Sefren's appeals in criminal cases have raised arguments that are precluded by the precedent set in United States v. Contreras-Trevino, which classified a license plate frame as a “covering” under the Texas Transportation Code. The Government's motion for summary affirmance has been granted, resulting in the affirmation of the district court's judgments. This opinion is not to be published and does not serve as precedent, except in the limited circumstances outlined in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Legal Issues Addressed

Classification of License Plate Frame under Texas Transportation Code

Application: The appeals were dismissed based on the precedent set in United States v. Contreras-Trevino, which determined that a license plate frame is considered a 'covering' under the Texas Transportation Code.

Reasoning: Janeen Avis Sefren and Samuel William Sefren's appeals in criminal cases have raised arguments that are precluded by the precedent set in United States v. Contreras-Trevino, which classified a license plate frame as a 'covering' under the Texas Transportation Code.

Non-Publication and Non-Precedential Nature of Opinion

Application: The opinion in this case is designated as non-precedential and is not to be published, except under specific circumstances outlined in the court's rules.

Reasoning: This opinion is not to be published and does not serve as precedent, except in the limited circumstances outlined in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Precedential Effect of Summary Affirmance

Application: The court granted the Government's motion for summary affirmance, which results in the affirmation of the district court's judgments based on existing precedent.

Reasoning: The Government's motion for summary affirmance has been granted, resulting in the affirmation of the district court's judgments.