United States v. Abernathy

66 F. App'x 208
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJune 10, 2003
DocketNo. 02-3071
StatusPublished

This text of 66 F. App'x 208 (United States v. Abernathy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Abernathy, 66 F. App'x 208 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

[209]*209ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment be affirmed. The district court understood the facts in appellant’s case and the nature of its authority to depart from the applicable guideline range, and exercised its discretion not to depart. Appellant’s claim is, therefore, not reviewable on appeal. See United States v. Draffin, 286 F.3d 606, 609 (D.C.Cir.2002); United States v. Sammoury, 74 F.3d 1341, 1343 (D.C.Cir.1996); United States v. Hazel, 928 F.2d 420, 424-25 (D.C.Cir.1991).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Draffin, Donald Ray
286 F.3d 606 (D.C. Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Robert D. Hazel
928 F.2d 420 (D.C. Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 F. App'x 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-abernathy-cadc-2003.