Filed: Oct. 20, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-51134 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BRANDY MICHELE SHIPMAN, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-98-CR-656-3 - October 19, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Brandy Michele Shipman appeals her jury conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violat
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-51134 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BRANDY MICHELE SHIPMAN, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-98-CR-656-3 - October 19, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Brandy Michele Shipman appeals her jury conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violati..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-51134
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRANDY MICHELE SHIPMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-98-CR-656-3
--------------------
October 19, 1999
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Brandy Michele Shipman appeals her jury conviction for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. She argues that she was
constructively denied the assistance of counsel at her sentencing
hearing. The record is sufficiently developed to consider
Shipman’s claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Scott,
159 F.3d 916, 924 (5th Cir. 1998). Shipman had counsel at the
sentencing hearing who reasserted her objections to the
Presentence Report, argued that she should be sentenced at the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-51134
-2-
low end of the guideline range, that the district court recommend
sending her to boot camp, and that she be allowed to remain on
bond pending appeal. Therefore, Shipman was not constructively
denied counsel at the sentencing hearing. See United States v.
Cronic,
466 U.S. 648, 658-59 (1984).
AFFIRMED.