United States v. Jones, 96-20768 (2003)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 96-20768
Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 09, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-20768 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus THOMAS JONES, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 96-CR-25-1 - - - - - - - - - - May 26, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Thomas Jones appeals from his sentence following his guilty- plea conviction for possession with
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-20768 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus THOMAS JONES, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 96-CR-25-1 - - - - - - - - - - May 26, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Thomas Jones appeals from his sentence following his guilty- plea conviction for possession with i..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20768
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS JONES,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 96-CR-25-1
- - - - - - - - - -
May 26, 1997
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Thomas Jones appeals from his sentence following his guilty-
plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine
base. He argues that the district court erred by increasing his
offense level by two pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction
of justice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Based upon the testimony at the sentencing hearing, the
district court did not err by increasing Jones’ offense level for
obstruction of justice. See United States v. Cabral-Castillo, 35
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
No. 96-20768
- 2 -
F.3d 182, 186 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
Source: CourtListener