United States v. Charles Bramlett

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Charles Bramlett

466 F. App'x 384

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 2012

Docket11-10434

StatusUnpublished

This text of 466 F. App'x 384 (United States v. Charles Bramlett) 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. Charles Bramlett, 466 F. App'x 384 (5th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Wayne Bramlett pleaded guilty to one count of manufacturing counterfeit United States obligations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471, and was sentenced to 33 months in prison. He now appeals, arguing that the district court erred by ordering that his federal sentence run consecutively to any sentence that might be imposed in pending state criminal cases. *385 The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on a waiver contained in Bramlett’s plea agreement, or for summary affirmance on the basis of binding circuit precedent. Alternatively, the Government seeks an extension of time to file a brief. Bramlett has not addressed the effect of the waiver provision on his pending appeal.

We need not reach the waiver issue because, as Bramlett concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.2006), in which we held that a district court may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively to a yet-to-be-imposed state sentence. Despite Bramlett’s arguments that Brown was incorrectly decided, Brown remains the law of this circuit. See Setser v. United States, -U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1463,1466-74, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motions to dismiss and, alternatively, for an extension of time are DENIED. Further, defense counsel is WARNED that failing to address a waiver-of-appeal provision in a reply after the Government has raised it wastes judicial resources and will invite sanctions. See United States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir.1999).

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Wayne Bramlett pleaded guilty to one count of manufacturing counterfeit United States obligations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471, and was sentenced to 33 months in prison. He now appeals, arguing that the district court erred by ordering that his federal sentence run consecutively to any sentence that might be imposed in pending state criminal cases. *385 The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on a waiver contained in Bramlett’s plea agreement, or for summary affirmance on the basis of binding circuit precedent. Alternatively, the Government seeks an extension of time to file a brief. Bramlett has not addressed the effect of the waiver provision on his pending appeal.

We need not reach the waiver issue because, as Bramlett concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.2006), in which we held that a district court may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively to a yet-to-be-imposed state sentence. Despite Bramlett’s arguments that Brown was incorrectly decided, Brown remains the law of this circuit. See Setser v. United States, -U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1463,1466-74, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motions to dismiss and, alternatively, for an extension of time are DENIED. Further, defense counsel is WARNED that failing to address a waiver-of-appeal provision in a reply after the Government has raised it wastes judicial resources and will invite sanctions. See United States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir.1999).

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

466 F. App'x 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-bramlett-ca5-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack