Filed: Dec. 02, 2005
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 December 2, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk No. 04-60089 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PETER HALAT, JR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg _ ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*1 The petition for rehearing is grante
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 2, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk No. 04-60089 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PETER HALAT, JR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg _ ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*1 The petition for rehearing is granted..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 2, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
No. 04-60089
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PETER HALAT, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg
_________________________________________________________
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*1
The petition for rehearing is granted, but the judgment of the district court is
*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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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.
in all respects affirmed for these reasons:
1. We assume the waiver of appeal did not prevent Halat from
challenging the sentence as improperly based on an ambiguous verdict
where the lesser penalty would have to be assessed per United States
v. Conley,
349 F.3d 837 (5th Cir. 2003).
2. The verdict in this case was not ambiguous. It charged the violation of
18 U.S.C. ยง 1962(c) and the punishment provided for violation of that
statute is greater than the sentence given Halat. There was no error.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.