United States v. C. L. Tippett

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 25, 1997
Docket97-1413
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. C. L. Tippett (United States v. C. L. Tippett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. C. L. Tippett, (8th Cir. 1997).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 97-1413 ___________

United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. C. L. Tippett, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________

Submitted: August 7, 1997

Filed: August 25, 1997 ___________

Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

C.L. Tippett challenges the 262-month sentence imposed by the district court1 following his guilty plea to attempting to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We affirm.

1 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. On appeal, Tippett argues that the district court erred in not assessing an additional 1-level reduction to his base offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

-2- Manual § 3E1.1(b) (1995) for acceptance of responsibility; in increasing his base offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) (1995) for being an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of a criminal activity; and in not reducing his offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2(b) (1995) for being a minor participant. Because Tippett did not object to the presentence report or raise the above arguments at sentencing, we review his contentions only for plain error resulting in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Robinson, 20 F.3d 320, 323 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Ball, 999 F.2d 339, 340-41 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Having reviewed the record, we find no such error in the district court&s adjustments to Perez&s base offense level.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-3-

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

Related

United States v. Gaylon Don Ball
999 F.2d 339 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Anthony Robinson
20 F.3d 320 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. C. L. Tippett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-c-l-tippett-ca8-1997.