Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Romero-Cicle, 00-50383 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 00-50383 Visitors: 33
Filed: Apr. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-50383 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RANDOLFO ROMERO-CICLE, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-98-CR-133-1-OLG - April 10, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Randolfo Romero-Cicle, federal prisoner # 79245-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)
More
                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 00-50383
                         Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RANDOLFO ROMERO-CICLE,

                                          Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                   USDC No. SA-98-CR-133-1-OLG
                       --------------------
                          April 10, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Randolfo Romero-Cicle, federal prisoner # 79245-079, appeals

the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion to

modify his sentence based upon amendments to the Sentencing

Guidelines.    He argues that he was entitled to a two-level

adjustment to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(6) and

that the district court erroneously imposed a five-year

supervised release term even though Romero met the criteria under

U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.



     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-50383
                                -2-

     Romero’s postjudgment motion was not based upon amendments

to the Guidelines following his sentence.   His § 3582 motion was

thus unauthorized, and the district court did not have

jurisdiction to entertain it.    See United States v. Early, 
27 F.3d 140
, 142 (5th Cir. 1994).   Furthermore, Romero received a

two-level adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(6), and his five-

year term of supervised release was imposed in accordance with

U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(1).   See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2, comment. (n.1).

     AFFIRMED.

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