United States v. Cotton

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Cotton

168 F. App'x 609

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 2006

Docket05-10773

StatusUnpublished

This text of 168 F. App'x 609 (United States v. Cotton) 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. Cotton, 168 F. App'x 609 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Vernarde Cotton, federal prisoner # 17971-077, appeals the denial of his Fed. R.Crim.P. 35 motion challenging the 30-year probation-revocation sentence imposed pursuant to his bank robbery conviction. He argues pursuant to Benson v. United States, 332 F.2d 288 (5th Cir.1964), that the district court illegally imposed a “general sentence” in his multi-count conviction.

The record, however, discloses that the 30-year aggregate sentence was not a “general sentence.” As was announced in open court on June 10, 1988, the district court ran the 20-year term imposed on count three consecutively with the 10-year term imposed on count two. The district court’s denial of Rule 35 relief was therefore neither illegal nor a “gross abuse of discretion.” United States v. Sinclair, 1 F.3d 329, 330 (5th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Cotton’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Cotton is cautioned that future frivolous challenges to his sentence will result in the imposition of sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Vernarde Cotton, federal prisoner # 17971-077, appeals the denial of his Fed. R.Crim.P. 35 motion challenging the 30-year probation-revocation sentence imposed pursuant to his bank robbery conviction. He argues pursuant to Benson v. United States, 332 F.2d 288 (5th Cir.1964), that the district court illegally imposed a “general sentence” in his multi-count conviction.

The record, however, discloses that the 30-year aggregate sentence was not a “general sentence.” As was announced in open court on June 10, 1988, the district court ran the 20-year term imposed on count three consecutively with the 10-year term imposed on count two. The district court’s denial of Rule 35 relief was therefore neither illegal nor a “gross abuse of discretion.” United States v. Sinclair, 1 F.3d 329, 330 (5th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Cotton’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Cotton is cautioned that future frivolous challenges to his sentence will result in the imposition of sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

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)

168 F. App'x 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cotton-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack