Filed: Nov. 27, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: _ No. 96-2777EM _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * Keith Roberts, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: November 14, 1996 Filed: November 27, 1996 _ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Keith Roberts appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following Roberts's guilty plea to possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute. Having carefully reviewed the
Summary: _ No. 96-2777EM _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * Keith Roberts, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: November 14, 1996 Filed: November 27, 1996 _ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Keith Roberts appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following Roberts's guilty plea to possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute. Having carefully reviewed the ..
More
_____________ No. 96-2777EM _____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * Keith Roberts, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _____________ Submitted: November 14, 1996 Filed: November 27, 1996 _____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _____________ PER CURIAM. Keith Roberts appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following Roberts's guilty plea to possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute. Having carefully reviewed the record, we reject counsel's contention that the district court improperly enhanced Roberts's sentence for possession of a revolver. We also conclude the arguments raised in Roberts's supplemental brief are meritless: he specifically pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine base, and the weight of the mixture containing the cocaine base was properly included in the drug quantity calculation. The district court's sentence was correct and further discussion is not warranted. We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
