Filed: Jan. 08, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-1832 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Michael C. Hughes, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: January 4, 2002 Filed: January 8, 2002 _ Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Michael C. Hughes pleaded guilty to attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-1832 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Michael C. Hughes, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: January 4, 2002 Filed: January 8, 2002 _ Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Michael C. Hughes pleaded guilty to attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-1832
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Michael C. Hughes, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: January 4, 2002
Filed: January 8, 2002
___________
Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Michael C. Hughes pleaded guilty to attempted possession of cocaine with
intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and the District Court1
sentenced him to fifty-one months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release.
On appeal, Hughes argues that the Court failed to make factual findings at sentencing
concerning his criminal history, and that it was required to do so given his objection
to the presentence report (PSR).
1
The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
After carefully reviewing the record, we cannot agree with Hughes that he
objected to the PSR at sentencing. In fact, after the Court rejected a recommended
victim-related enhancement, Hughes’s counsel expressly informed the Court that
Hughes had no other objection to the PSR. The Court therefore committed no error
in adopting the rest of the PSR’s factual findings. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(b)(6)(D)
(stating that District Court may accept unobjected-to portions of PSR).
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-