USA v. Stephanie Langloi


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-31009 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: EMG , Judge: CES Mandate pull date is 04/29/2011 for Appellant Stephanie O. Langlois; denying as unnecessary motion to strike portion of brief filed by Appellee USA [6761975-2] [10-31009]

Download PDF
Case: 10-31009 Document: 00511439444 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-31009 Summary Calendar April 8, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STEPHANIE O. LANGLOIS, also known as Stephanie O’Neil, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:10-CR-30-1 Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Stephanie O. Langlois, also known as Stephanie O’Neil (O’Neil), appeals the sentence imposed for forging a government seal in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 506. The district court sentenced O’Neil to six months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release and ordered her to pay $15,000 in restitution. In the written plea agreement, O’Neil waived the right to appeal her conviction and sentence except that she reserved the right to appeal a sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum. Because the Government elects * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. Case: 10-31009 Document: 00511439444 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2011 No. 10-31009 not to enforce the appeal waiver, the waiver is not binding and does not bar the instant appeal. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir. 2006). O’Neil contends that the district court committed reversible plain error by failing to provide her with an opportunity to allocute. O’Neil’s claim of error is subject to plain error review because she did not object to the district court’s failure to provide her with an opportunity to allocute. See United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344, 350 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). The invitation to allocute complied with Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). See United States v. Hernandez, 291 F.3d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir. 2002). The district court was not obligated to renew the invitation to allocute after it discussed O’Neil’s mental health with her mother. See id. at 316. We do not address O’Neil’s argument that she was denied the right to allocute because the invitation to allocute preceded the victim allocution and was not renewed thereafter because she raises the argument for the first time in her reply brief. See United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 360 (5th Cir. 2010). O’Neil has failed to demonstrate any error, plain or otherwise. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The motion to strike the appendix to the reply brief is DENIED as unnecessary. 2

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?