United States v. Osborne, 95-31120 (1996)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 95-31120
Visitors: 29
Filed: Jul. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-31120 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD RAY OSBORNE Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Louisiana (CR-95-4-B-M2) July 17, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* A failure to act with knowledge of a disparate impact upon minorities does not constitute a failure to act because of a disparate impact
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-31120 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD RAY OSBORNE Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Louisiana (CR-95-4-B-M2) July 17, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* A failure to act with knowledge of a disparate impact upon minorities does not constitute a failure to act because of a disparate impact ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-31120 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD RAY OSBORNE Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Louisiana (CR-95-4-B-M2) July 17, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* A failure to act with knowledge of a disparate impact upon minorities does not constitute a failure to act because of a disparate impact upon minorities. Congress need not agree with the factual recommendations of a federal agency. 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 * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
Source: CourtListener
