United States v. August, 96-40339 (1997)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 96-40339
Visitors: 19
Filed: Apr. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-40339 Conference Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MANUAL AUGUST, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:95-CR-36-1 - - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Manual August appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court mistakenly concluded th
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-40339 Conference Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MANUAL AUGUST, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:95-CR-36-1 - - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Manual August appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court mistakenly concluded tha..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-40339
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MANUAL AUGUST,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:95-CR-36-1
- - - - - - - - - -
April 16, 1997
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Manual August appeals his sentence, arguing that the
district court mistakenly concluded that he lacked the authority
to make a departure below the statutory minimum sentence for the
offense of conviction. We have reviewed the record and the
briefs of the parties and find no reversible error. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f)(4); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
AFFIRMED.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
Source: CourtListener
