United States v. Alfred Brooks

542 F. App'x 369
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 18, 2013
Docket13-10263
StatusUnpublished

This text of 542 F. App'x 369 (United States v. Alfred Brooks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Alfred Brooks, 542 F. App'x 369 (5th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Alfred Brooks, federal prisoner # 30337-077, appeals the district court’s denial of the Government’s motion for a sentence reduction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). Brooks asserts generally that the district court erred in finding that he did not provide substantial assistance and in finding that he made misrepresentations in his previous motion for a sentence reduction.

“[A] federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.” United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628, 122 S.Ct. 2450, 153 L.Ed.2d 586 (2002); United States v. Lightfoot, 724 F.3d 593, 595 (5th Cir.2013). Section 3742, 18 U.S.C., authorizes this court to consider a defendant’s appeal of an otherwise final sentence when the defendant argues that the sentence was imposed in violation of law; was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines; was greater than the advisory guidelines range; or was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable. § 3742(a). We must consider Brooks’s arguments regarding the denial of the Government’s Rule 35(b) motion to determine our jurisdiction. See Lightfoot, 724 F.3d at 595. Brooks does not raise any argu *370 ments that fall within the parameters of § 3742(a). Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the Rule 35(b) motion. See Lightfoot, 724 F.3d at 595-96.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

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

Related

United States v. Ruiz
536 U.S. 622 (Supreme Court, 2002)
United States v. Anthony Lightfoot, Jr.
724 F.3d 593 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
542 F. App'x 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-alfred-brooks-ca5-2013.