USA v. Randy Neece


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-10850 Affirmed ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES Mandate pull date is 05/08/2012 for Appellant Randy Neece; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [6999209-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [6999209-3] [11-10850]

Download PDF
Case: 11-10850 Document: 00511823997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-10850 Conference Calendar April 17, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RANDY NEECE, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CR-84-1 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Randy Neece raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that a district court has the discretion to order a federal sentence to run consecutively to a yet-to-be-imposed state sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3584. See Setser v. United States, ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 10-7387, 2012 WL 1019970, at **2-8 (Mar. 28, 2012). The Government’s motion for * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-10850 Document: 00511823997 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2012 No. 11-10850 summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 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?