United States v. Bishop

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Bishop. Read the opinion of the Court — 264 F.3d 535
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided December 11, 2002·No. 02-10426·Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10426 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRIAN DAVID BISHOP,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-177-4-A -------------------- December 10, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brian David Bishop appeals the sentence following his guilty

plea conviction for using and carrying a firearm during and in

relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (2). He argues that the district court

erroneously departed upward by finding by a preponderance of the

evidence that Bishop participated in uncharged robberies. The

district court properly applied the preponderance standard. See

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 02-10426 -2-

United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 157 (1997); United States

v. Patten, 40 F.3d 774, 776 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreover, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in upwardly

departing. See United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th

Cir. 1994) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

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

United States v. Bishop, (5th Cir. 2002).

United States v. Bishop (United States v. Bishop) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Watts
519 U.S. 148 (Supreme Court, 1997)
United States v. Philip Scott Ashburn
38 F.3d 803 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Edward L. Patten, M.D.
40 F.3d 774 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)