United States v. Covington

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedMay 18, 1999
Docket98-7131
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Covington (United States v. Covington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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. Covington, (10th Cir. 1999).

Opinion

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 1999 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellant, vs. No. 98-7131 (D.C. No. 97-CR-58-S) JAMES COVINGTON, (E.D. Okla.)

Defendant - Appellee.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. **

Mr. Covington entered a plea of guilty to interstate domestic violence, 18

U.S.C. § 2261(a)(2), and was sentenced to 97 months imprisonment and three

years supervised release. With an offense level of 27 and a criminal history

category of II, Mr. Covington was sentenced at the top of the guideline range of

78-97 months. See USSG ch. 5, part A (Sentencing Table). He now appeals,

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. ** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. contending that the district courts improperly sentenced him at the top of the

guideline range. We lack jurisdiction to interfere with the district court’s

discretion to sentence within the guideline range; no exceptional conditions have

been shown. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 97 (1996); United States v.

Smith, 81 F.3d 915, 920 (10th Cir. 1996).

Counsel, having filed an Anders brief, has moved to withdraw as attorney

of record. The motion is granted.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge

-2-

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

Related

Koon v. United States
518 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court, 1996)
United States v. Cortez Smith
81 F.3d 915 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Covington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-covington-ca10-1999.