USA v. Oscar Stamper


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-30881 Affirmed] Judge: JLW , Judge: PRO , Judge: CH. Mandate pull date is 09/11/2013 for Appellant Oscar Stamper; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Oscar Stamper [7376067-2]; denying motion for the Forensic Report of the computer and the report of the initial exam of the computer by Det. Kowpowskie to be made available filed by Appellant Mr. Oscar Stamper [7376067-3]; denying motion to strike brief filed by Appellant Mr. Oscar Stamper [7376067-4]; denying motion to relieve attorney filed by Appellant Mr. Oscar Stamper [7361365-2] [12-30881]

Download PDF
Case: 12-30881 Document: 00512349707 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-30881 Summary Calendar August 21, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. OSCAR STAMPER, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:11-CR-23-1 Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Oscar Stamper appeals the 480-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receiving child pornography. Additionally, Stamper has filed pro se two motions to appoint substitute counsel, to strike the brief filed on his behalf by defense counsel, and for discovery of a detective’s initial exam of his computer and a forensic report of his computer. The outstanding motions are DENIED. Stamper complains of difficulty communicating with defense counsel; the Federal Public Defender responded by * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-30881 Document: 00512349707 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 No. 12-30881 explaining the communications efforts. Neither Stamper’s motions nor his counsel’s response demonstrates that “there is a conflict of interest or other most pressing circumstances or that the interests of justice otherwise require relief of counsel.” Fifth Circuit Plan Under the Criminal Justice Act, § 5B; see 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c). As Stamper continues to be represented by counsel, he does not have the right to hybrid representation or simultaneous representation by himself and counsel. See United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447, 449 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1999). As to the merits of the appeal, Stamper suggests that we reevaluate our holding in United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 119-23 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2773 (2012), that U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness in light of a 2012 United States Sentencing Commission Report that criticizes § 2G2.2. We may not overrule Miller absent an en banc or superseding Supreme Court decision. See United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 n.34 (5th Cir. 2002). Additionally, we have repeatedly held that challenges to the presumption of reasonableness of § 2G2.2 are foreclosed by Miller. See, e.g., United States v. Ellis, ___ F.3d ___, No. 12-10162, 2013 WL 3156007, at *6 (5th Cir. May 20, 2013). Next, Stamper contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable based on the facts and circumstances of his case. He points to the staleness of his prior convictions that increased the statutory minimum sentence and contends that his offense did not involve contact with minors or the distribution of child pornography. Additionally, he argues that a lower sentence was necessary to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities given that defendants who engaged in significantly more egregious conduct have received lower sentences than him. The district court was aware of these allegedly mitigating circumstances but concluded that a sentence of 480 months was warranted due to Stamper’s history of engaging in sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor, his current offense 2 Case: 12-30881 Document: 00512349707 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 No. 12-30881 conduct, and the need to protect the public from his further crimes. Stamper has failed to show that any sentencing disparity was unwarranted given that he provides no information regarding the other defendants’ records. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, he has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that is accorded to his withinguidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3

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?