Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Chime, 00-20600 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 00-20600 Visitors: 19
Filed: Apr. 12, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20600 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHN CHIME, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CR-108-3 - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* John Chime appeals the 23-month sentence imposed by the district court when it revoked his supervised release. He contends that the
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 00-20600
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN CHIME,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. H-95-CR-108-3
                      --------------------
                         April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     John Chime appeals the 23-month sentence imposed by the

district court when it revoked his supervised release.   He

contends that the district court failed to consider the Chapter 7

policy statements of the Sentencing Guidelines.   Because Chime

failed to raise this issue in the district court, review is for

plain error only.   See United States v. Ayers, 
946 F.2d 1127
,

1131 (5th Cir. 1991).   In Ayers, we stated that when the district

court imposed a sentence within its discretion, “[t]he failure to

articulate a consideration of the [Chapter 7] policy statements

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-20600
                                -2-

was not plain 
error.” 946 F.2d at 1131
.   Chime does not contend

that his sentence was outside the statutory range.   Because Chime

has identified no plain error, the sentence of the district court

is AFFIRMED.

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