Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Lerma, 99-41300 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 99-41300 Visitors: 15
Filed: Sep. 29, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-41300 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS ROMEO LERMA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-98-CR-50-1 - September 28, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carlos Romeo Lerma appeals the sentence imposed upon revocation of his probation by contending that he was not afforde
More
                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 99-41300
                          Summary Calendar



UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS ROMEO LERMA,

                                          Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. B-98-CR-50-1
                       --------------------
                        September 28, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Carlos Romeo Lerma appeals the sentence imposed upon

revocation of his probation by contending that he was not

afforded the right of allocution at the sentencing hearing, in

violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(C).   The Government

confesses error and agrees that Lerma is entitled to relief.     See

United States v. Anderson, 
987 F.2d 251
, 261 (5th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, Lerma’s sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED

so that Lerma can exercise his right of allocution prior to

resentencing.

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer