USA v. Nathaniel Thoma

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-40759 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: JLD , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 08/12/2014 for Appellant Nathaniel Howard Thomas; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [7577144-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [7577144-3] [13-40759]

Case: 13-40759

Document: 00512706754

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/22/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 13-40759
Summary Calendar

FILED
July 22, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
NATHANIEL HOWARD THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CR-14-27

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Nathaniel Howard Thomas, federal prisoner # 07052-078, was convicted
of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances,
possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base, and
distribution of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a playground. He
was sentenced to concurrent 235-month prison terms on each count. He was
also sentenced to a total of six years of supervised release. Pursuant to 18

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-40759

Document: 00512706754

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/22/2014

No. 13-40759
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the district court reduced his sentence of imprisonment to
188 months.
Thomas was released to supervision on November 7, 2011, but his
release was revoked because he had been convicted of failing to register as a
sex offender in Collin County, Texas. The district court sentenced Thomas to
12 months of imprisonment and 60 months of supervised release. On appeal,
Thomas makes no direct challenge to the district court’s revocation of his
supervised release or the sentence imposed on revocation. He argues, as he
did in the district court, that his original conviction and sentence should be
overturned on double jeopardy grounds. A defendant may not challenge the
validity of his underlying conviction or his original sentence of supervised
release on appeal from the revocation of supervised release. United States v.
Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 2009). Thomas has shown no error in
connection with his revocation proceedings.
The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The
motion for an extension of time in which to file a brief is DENIED. The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2