Filed: Apr. 15, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-40814 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CLAY ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-96-CV-154-1 - - - - - - - - - - April 8, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Clay Robertson appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. R
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-40814 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CLAY ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-96-CV-154-1 - - - - - - - - - - April 8, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Clay Robertson appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. Ro..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40814
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CLAY ROBERTSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-96-CV-154-1
- - - - - - - - - -
April 8, 1998
Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clay Robertson appeals his sentence for conspiracy to
possess marijuana with intent to distribute. Robertson argues
that the district court erred in imposing a sentence adjustment
for obstruction of justice pursuant to United States Sentencing
Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 3C1.1. This argument was not
raised before the district court. Having reviewed the record and
the briefs of the parties, we AFFIRM. Based on the district
court’s adoption of the Presentence Investigation Report, we find
that no plain error was committed. See United States v. Vital,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-40814
-2-
68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Lopez,
923
F.2d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.