Filed: Feb. 16, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: No. 99-10629 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10629 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ADRIAN EDMOND DURAND, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-226-1 - February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Adrian Edmond Durand appeals from his sentence for bank robbery. Durand contends solely that
Summary: No. 99-10629 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10629 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ADRIAN EDMOND DURAND, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-226-1 - February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Adrian Edmond Durand appeals from his sentence for bank robbery. Durand contends solely that t..
More
No. 99-10629
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10629
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ADRIAN EDMOND DURAND,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CR-226-1
--------------------
February 16, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Adrian Edmond Durand appeals from his sentence for bank
robbery. Durand contends solely that the district court
misconstrued § 5K2.12 of the Sentencing Guidelines by requiring
that an offense be comitted as the direct result of coercion or
duress instead of as the indirect result to obtain a downward
departure.
The district court’s comments at the sentencing hearing did
not indicate that the district court believed it could not grant
Durand’s motion. Rather, the district court indicated that it
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-10629
-2-
did not believe that Durand acted under duress. We therefore
lack jurisdiction to consider Durand’s appeal. United States v.
Landerman,
167 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir. 1999).
APPEAL DISMISSED.