USA v. Poore
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
F I L E D
July 6, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
No. 05-51250 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BRETT ROLLAND POORE, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (1:05-CR-90-1) -------------------Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant Brett Rolland Poore pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of
Finding that Poore was a career criminal, the
district court sentenced him on each count to 262 months in prison and five years of supervised release, the terms to run
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Poore appeals, arguing that his sentence, imposed after the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), was unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Here, the district court fulfilled its duty to consider all of the § 3553 factors and sentenced Poore to 262 months of
imprisonment, which was the lowest end of the sentencing guidelines range. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), This sentence is within guidelines range and is
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). the properly calculated advisory
presumptively reasonable. 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, There is no indication that the sentence See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519. The
imposed was unreasonable. district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?