Filed: Aug. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41230 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CULLEN YAW, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:98-CR-26-4 - August 26, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Cullen Yaw appeals his sentence, which was imposed after he entered a guilty plea to intent to distribute and distribution o
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41230 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CULLEN YAW, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:98-CR-26-4 - August 26, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Cullen Yaw appeals his sentence, which was imposed after he entered a guilty plea to intent to distribute and distribution of..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41230
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CULLEN YAW,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:98-CR-26-4
--------------------
August 26, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cullen Yaw appeals his sentence, which was imposed after he
entered a guilty plea to intent to distribute and distribution of
methamphetamine. He argues that the district court abused its
discretion in refusing to grant him a downward departure under
U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12, p.s.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Yaw’s contention. “The
imposition of a lawful sentence coupled with the decision not to
depart from the guidelines provides no grounds for relief.”
United States v. DiMarco,
46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
-2-
DISMISSED.