Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Staffney, 95-60366 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 95-60366 Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-60366 Conference Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ANGELA STAFFNEY, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:94-CR-69-LN - - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant appeals from her guilty plea conviction and sentence for possession with int
More
                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                          __________________

                              No. 95-60366
                          Conference Calendar
                           __________________


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                       Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ANGELA STAFFNEY,

                                       Defendant-Appellee.



                        - - - - - - - - - -
           Appeal from the United States District Court
             for the Southern District of Mississippi
                      USDC No. 3:94-CR-69-LN
                        - - - - - - - - - -
                           April 18, 1996
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appellant appeals from her guilty plea conviction and sentence

for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). She contends that the district

court erred in declining to apply a four-level decrease in her base

offense level for her role as a minimal participant under U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.2(a).

     We have reviewed the record, the briefs, and the district

court's oral ruling and perceive no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

     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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

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