Filed: Apr. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-20650 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MADHAVI BISWAS, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CR-67-1 - - - - - - - - - - April 5, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Madhavi Biswas appeals her conviction and sentence for unauthorized use of an access device in v
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-20650 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MADHAVI BISWAS, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CR-67-1 - - - - - - - - - - April 5, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Madhavi Biswas appeals her conviction and sentence for unauthorized use of an access device in vi..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-20650
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MADHAVI BISWAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-95-CR-67-1
- - - - - - - - - -
April 5, 1996
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Madhavi Biswas appeals her conviction and sentence for
unauthorized use of an access device in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1029(a)(2). She argues that the district court erred in
enhancing her base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines
for her role as an “organizer or leader” in the offense, under
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). We have reviewed the arguments and the
record and find no reversible error. See United States v.
Barreto,
871 F.2d 511, 512 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v.
West,
58 F.3d 133, 138 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.