Filed: Jun. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-11197 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOE RILEY SLAUGHTER, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:99-CR-10-3 - June 14, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joe Riley Slaughter appeals from his sentence for distribution of crack cocaine and aiding and abetting. He contends that the dis
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-11197 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOE RILEY SLAUGHTER, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:99-CR-10-3 - June 14, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joe Riley Slaughter appeals from his sentence for distribution of crack cocaine and aiding and abetting. He contends that the dist..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-11197
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOE RILEY SLAUGHTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:99-CR-10-3
--------------------
June 14, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joe Riley Slaughter appeals from his sentence for
distribution of crack cocaine and aiding and abetting. He
contends that the district court erred by failing to rule on his
downward-departure motion. The Government argues that we lack
jurisdiction to consider Slaughter’s contention.
By adopting the Presentence Report, imposing a 151-month
sentence, and explaining that the sentence was appropriate partly
in light of Slaughter’s criminal history (explicitly rejecting
the reason Slaughter had offered in support of a downward
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-11197
-2-
departure), the district court implicitly denied the motion. See
United States v. Como,
53 F.3d 87, 90 (5th Cir. 1995). The
record does not indicate that the district court mistakenly
believed it lacked authority to downwardly depart; we lack
jurisdiction to review the district court’s implicit denial of
Slaughter’s downward-departure motion. United States v.
Landerman,
167 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir. 1999).
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.