Filed: Aug. 12, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40045 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KENNETH RAY FORTNEY, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-98-CR-224-1 - August 2, 1999 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Kenneth Fortney appeals following his conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and his sentence of 57
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40045 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KENNETH RAY FORTNEY, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-98-CR-224-1 - August 2, 1999 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Kenneth Fortney appeals following his conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and his sentence of 57 ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40045
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KENNETH RAY FORTNEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-98-CR-224-1
--------------------
August 2, 1999
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kenneth Fortney appeals following his conviction for
possession with intent to distribute marijuana and his sentence
of 57 months’ imprisonment. He argues that the district court,
by intimidating and interrupting Fortney, denied him his right of
allocution at the sentencing hearing in violation of Fed.
R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(C).
We review whether the district court complied with
Rule 32(c)(3)(C) de novo. See United States v. Myers, 150 F.3d
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-40045
-2-
459, 461 (5th Cir. 1998). Our review of the transcript of
Fortney’s sentencing reveals that the district court personally
invited Fortney at least once to say anything on his own behalf
and that Fortney was not intimidated to respond. The district
court was not required to again extend such an invitation. See
United States v. Washington,
44 F.3d 1271, 1277 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.