Filed: Dec. 17, 2004
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 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-10848 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KATHY CHEWNING, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:03-CR-434-1-D - Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-10848 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KATHY CHEWNING, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:03-CR-434-1-D - Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10848
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KATHY CHEWNING,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CR-434-1-D
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Kathy Chewning
raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Pineiro,
377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed
(U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263), which held that Blakely v.
Washington,
124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), does not apply to the United
States Sentencing Guidelines. The Government’s motion for
summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.