Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Rhodes, 00-4101 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-4101 Visitors: 34
Filed: Aug. 31, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-4101 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERRY J. RHODES, a/k/a Teddy Levern Austin, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-27) Submitted: August 18, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Ha
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-4101 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERRY J. RHODES, a/k/a Teddy Levern Austin, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-27) Submitted: August 18, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Stacey D. Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Following his guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999)), and one count of felon in possession of a firearm (21 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (West 2000)), Jerry J. Rhodes was sentenced to concurrent sixty-month prison terms. Rhodes appeals, claiming that the district court erred by adding one point to his criminal his- tory score pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1(e) (1998). We find no merit to his claim. Consequently, we affirm Rhodes’ conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 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