Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 93-2516
Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HOSIE JAMES III,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas

(February 16, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hosie James III was convicted of possession with intent to
distribute over fifty grams of crack cocaine. The probation
officer determined that James' guidelines sentence range was 151-
188 months. The district court adopted the PSR and sentenced James
to a term of 160 months. James argues that the district court
*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.

failed to supply adequate reasons for choosing the 160-month
sentence.
By statute, a sentencing court must consider the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of
the defendant; the need for punishment, deterrence, public
protection and rehabilitation; the available sentences; the
guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission; the need for consistency in sentencing; and the need
for restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). If a defendant's guidelines
sentencing range exceeds twenty-four months, the district court
must state in open court its reasons for selecting a particular
sentence within the range. Id. § 3553(c)(1). The sentencing court
must link the pertinent facts to the relevant statutory factors
supporting the sentence imposed. See United States v. Duran, 37
F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d
315, 344-45 (2d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1565 (1994);
see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
James did not object to the district court's allegedly
inadequate reasons for imposing a 160-month sentence. Therefore,
we review for plain error. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d
160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, ___
U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Jan. 18, 1995) (No. 94-7792). The requirements
enunciated in Calverley have not been met.
AFFIRMED.
2