Filed: Aug. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41512 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRED F. DELGENIO, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-98-CR-202-1 - - - - - - - - - - August 26, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Fred Delgenio appeals from his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41512 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRED F. DELGENIO, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-98-CR-202-1 - - - - - - - - - - August 26, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Fred Delgenio appeals from his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41512
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRED F. DELGENIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-98-CR-202-1
- - - - - - - - - -
August 26, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Fred Delgenio appeals from his sentence following his
guilty-plea conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to
distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Delgenio’s
sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred in not
granting him credit for acceptance of responsibility under
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The district court’s decision was based on
criminal activity that occurred after his plea and was unrelated
to the offense to which he pleaded guilty. The court did not err
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-41512
-2-
in refusing to grant the credit. See United States v. Watkins,
911 F.2d 983, 985 (5th Cir. 1990)(“the district court’s
interpretation that acceptance of responsibility includes
refraining from any violation of the law is not without
foundation”).
AFFIRMED.