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
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 afforded..
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.