Filed: Sep. 25, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 25, 2008 No. 05-40859 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROBERT E. NOLEN, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. WIENER, Circuit Judge: Before us following our second remand to the district court is that court’s Order
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 25, 2008 No. 05-40859 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROBERT E. NOLEN, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. WIENER, Circuit Judge: Before us following our second remand to the district court is that court’s Order ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 25, 2008 No. 05-40859 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROBERT E. NOLEN, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas -------------------- Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. WIENER, Circuit Judge: Before us following our second remand to the district court is that court’s Order on Remand filed August 7, 2008, in which, following a hearing attended by counsel for the government in person and by Defendant-Appellant via telephone after waiving attendance in person and waiving representation by counsel, the district court ordered restitution reimposed in the amount of $223,509. We have again reviewed the record on appeal, the filings of the parties, and the ruling of the district court on remand, as a result of which we are satisfied that the proceeding in the district court satisfied the requirements of due process and that the court’s reimposition of the restitution element of its sentence is appropriate in all respects. Accordingly, Nolen’s sentence, including restitution of $223,509, is AFFIRMED. 2
