Filed: Oct. 16, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 16, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-10144 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DAVID EARL KATES, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:97-CR-42-1 - Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David Earl Kates, federal prisoner
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 16, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-10144 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DAVID EARL KATES, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:97-CR-42-1 - Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David Earl Kates, federal prisoner ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 16, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10144
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID EARL KATES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:97-CR-42-1
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Earl Kates, federal prisoner #30428-077, appeals from
the denial of his motion for reduction of his sentence. He argues
that his offense level under United States Sentencing Guidelines §
4B1.1 was incorrectly calculated. Because the district court was
without authority to modify the imposed term, the denial of the
motion for a sentence reduction is AFFIRMED. See United States v.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-10144
-2-
Bridges,
116 F.3d 1110, 1112 (5th Cir. 1997). Kates’ motion to
file his reply brief out-of-time is GRANTED.