United States v. Coble, 04-11056 (2005)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 04-11056
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 04, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 4, 2005 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III _ Clerk No. 04-11056 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. WARREN DOUGLASS COBLE, JR Defendant - Appellant - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo 2:04-CR-25-ALL-J - Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.* PER CURIAM: IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion of the parties to v
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 4, 2005 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III _ Clerk No. 04-11056 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. WARREN DOUGLASS COBLE, JR Defendant - Appellant - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo 2:04-CR-25-ALL-J - Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.* PER CURIAM: IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion of the parties to va..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 4, 2005 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III _____________________ Clerk No. 04-11056 _____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. WARREN DOUGLASS COBLE, JR Defendant - Appellant --------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo 2:04-CR-25-ALL-J --------------------- Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.* PER CURIAM: IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion of the parties to vacate the appellant’s sentencing is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motion of the parties to remand the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division for resentencing is granted. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Source: CourtListener
