Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
02-40772•United States v. Fontenot
02-40772Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit19.02.2003
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40772
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LISA FONTENOT,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:01-CR-253-2
--------------------
February 19, 2003
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lisa Fontenot (Fontenot) appeals the sentence imposed by
the district court following her guilty-plea conviction for
possession with intent to distribute and distribution of crack
cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public school under 21 U.S.C.
§ 860. Fontenot argues that the district court erred in
declining to depart further downward from the Sentencing
Guidelines in imposing her sentence.
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 02-40772
-2-
“A district court has almost complete discretion to
determine the extent of a departure under [U.S.S.G.] § 5K1.1,”
and that decision may be reviewed by this court only if “the
district court was mistaken about its authority.” United States
v. Cooper, 274 F.3d 230, 248, 249 (5th Cir. 2001). In addition,
“something in the record [must] indicate that the district court
held such an erroneous belief.” United States v. Yanez-Huerta,
207 F.3d 746, 748 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks,
alteration, and citation omitted).
The record does not show that the district court refused
to depart further downward on Fontenot’s sentence based upon a
mistaken belief that it could not do so. Rather, the district
court denied Fontenot’s requested additional downward departure
because it was not warranted. Because the district court did not
misapprehend its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines, we
lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Accordingly, Fontenot’s
appeal is DISMISSED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.