Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Bell, 99-20011 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 99-20011 Visitors: 30
Filed: Feb. 16, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: No. 99-20011 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-20011 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DANNY WAYNE BELL, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-266-1 - - - - - - - - - - February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Danny Wayne Bell seeks to appeal his sentence of 46 months’ i
More
                            No. 99-20011
                                 -1-

                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 99-20011
                         Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DANNY WAYNE BELL,

                                           Defendant-Appellant.

                       - - - - - - - - - -
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. H-98-CR-266-1
                       - - - - - - - - - -
                        February 16, 2000


Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Danny Wayne Bell seeks to appeal his sentence of 46 months’

imprisonment after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession

of a firearm.   Bell waived his right to appeal his sentence in

his plea agreement, except in limited circumstances.     See United

States v. Melancon, 
972 F.2d 566
, 568 (5th Cir. 1992).    Such

circumstances are not implicated by the current appeal.    Bell’s

reliance on United States v. Goodman, 
165 F.3d 169
(2nd Cir.),

cert. denied, 
120 S. Ct. 318
(1999) is unavailing because Goodman

is not controlling and is distinguishable.

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-20011
                          -2-

The appeal is thus DISMISSED.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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