Filed: Apr. 12, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30708 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANDREW CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CR-10002-3 - - - - - - - - - - April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Andrew Christopher Johnson appeals his sentence for unlawful use of a communicati
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30708 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANDREW CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CR-10002-3 - - - - - - - - - - April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Andrew Christopher Johnson appeals his sentence for unlawful use of a communicatio..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30708
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANDREW CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CR-10002-3
- - - - - - - - - -
April 11, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Andrew Christopher Johnson appeals his sentence for unlawful
use of a communication facility in violation of 21 U.S.C.
ยง 843(b). He argues that his sentence should be vacated because
the $20,000 fine imposed by the district court is excessive.
Johnson did not raise this issue before the district court.
Therefore, we review for plain error. United States v.
Rodriguez,
15 F.3d 408, 414-15 (5th Cir. 1994). We do not find
that plain error has been established. See United States v.
Altamirano,
11 F.3d 52, 53 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v.
Matovsky,
935 F.2d 719, 722-23 (5th Cir. 1991).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-30708
-2-
AFFIRMED.