United States v. Chatman

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 8, 1999
Docket98-10388
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Chatman (United States v. Chatman) 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. Chatman, (5th Cir. 1999).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10388 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MELVIN CHATMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CR-60-1-E - - - - - - - - - - June 2, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melvin Chatman appeals the district court’s denial of his

motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Chatman argues that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum

sentence of five years under 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) because the

sentencing court imposed a three-year term of supervised release.

Chatman is not entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2). See United

States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir. 1997).

Further, the three-year term of supervised release does not extend

Chatman’s sentence of imprisonment beyond the five-year statutory

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 98-10388 -2-

maximum sentence. See United States v. Butler, 895 F.2d 1016, 1018

(5th Cir. 1989) (supervised release term does not extend a

defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum sentence).

Chatman’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Chatman is advised that future

frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the

imposition of sanctions. Chatman is further advised to review any

pending appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

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

Related

Howard v. King
707 F.2d 215 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)
United States v. Michael Wayne Butler
895 F.2d 1016 (Fifth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Chatman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-chatman-ca5-1999.