Filed: Apr. 11, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-40898 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL Defendant - Appellant - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:99-CR-27-1 - April 11, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Christopher Mitchell appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of assaulting a federal corrections officer with
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-40898 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL Defendant - Appellant - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:99-CR-27-1 - April 11, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Christopher Mitchell appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of assaulting a federal corrections officer with a..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40898
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:99-CR-27-1
--------------------
April 11, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Christopher Mitchell appeals his conviction and sentence for
one count of assaulting a federal corrections officer with a
dangerous weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. Mitchell first
argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction. He notes that he testified that he had no intent to
harm any officers and that the Government did not prove the
requisite intent. The jury rejected Mitchell’s testimony, and we
will not overturn that credibility judgment. See United States
v. Martinez,
975 F.2d 159, 161 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-40898
-2-
Polk,
56 F.3d 613, 620 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v.
Millsaps,
157 F.3d 989, 994 (5th Cir. 1998).
Mitchell argues that he should not have been sentenced as a
career offender because the instant offense is not a crime of
violence. The statutory elements of a 18 U.S.C. § 111 offense
are that the defendant, while armed with a dangerous weapon,
“forcibly assault[ed], resist[ed], oppos[ed], imped[ed],
intimidat[ed], or interfer[ed] with” a federal officer engaged in
the performance of his official duties. This offense
categorically constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of the
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and § 4B1.2 career-offender analysis. United
States v. Jackson,
220 F.3d 635, 638 & n.3 (5th Cir. 2000).
Mitchell has not shown that the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction or that the district court erred in
sentencing him as a career offender. Accordingly, the judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.