Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Roth, 02-30894 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 02-30894 Visitors: 24
Filed: Apr. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-30894 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RHONDA RENEE ROTH, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (99-CR-20078-1) - Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant Rhonda Renee Roth plea
More
                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                 Fifth Circuit
                                                              F I L E D
                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                  April 10, 2003

                                                           Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                   Clerk
                             No. 02-30894
                           Summary Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RHONDA RENEE ROTH,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                          --------------------
             Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Louisiana
                             (99-CR-20078-1)
                          --------------------

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Defendant-Appellant Rhonda Renee Roth pleaded guilty to theft

of mail, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708, and was sentenced to

probation.     Roth appeals her sentence following the district

court’s revocation of probation.

     Roth contends that the district court’s sentence of two years’

imprisonment was plainly unreasonable.    Roth has not shown

that her sentence was illegal or unreasonable.    See United States

v. Pena, 
125 F.3d 285
, 287 (5th Cir. 1997).   Roth also argues that


     *
        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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
the district court erred by sentencing her in excess of her

original guidelines sentencing range.    This argument is, as she

concedes, foreclosed by our precedent.   See 
id. The judgment
of the district court is

AFFIRMED.




                                2

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