Filed: Mar. 07, 2007
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 March 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-10942 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus NANCY GUTIERREZ SMELOSKY, also known as Nancy Smelosky, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-39-ALL - Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-10942 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus NANCY GUTIERREZ SMELOSKY, also known as Nancy Smelosky, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-39-ALL - Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing t..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 7, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10942
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NANCY GUTIERREZ SMELOSKY, also known as Nancy Smelosky,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-39-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Nancy Gutierrez
Smelosky raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v.
Scroggins,
411 F.3d 572, 576-77 (5th Cir. 2005), which held that
the Due Process Clause does not bar the application of Justice
Breyer’s remedy opinion in United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220
(2005), when resentencing defendants in light of Booker. The
Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.