United States v. Doyle

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Doyle

235 F. App'x 331

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 15, 2007

Docket06-10325

StatusUnpublished

This text of 235 F. App'x 331 (United States v. Doyle) 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. Doyle, 235 F. App'x 331 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Richard Keith Doyle appeals the sentence he received upon revocation of his term of supervised release. He argues that the sentence is unreasonable because it exceeds the sentencing range recommended by the relevant policy statements in the Sentencing Guidelines and because the district court failed to specify its reasons for the sentence. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal or for summary affirmance on the basis that we lack jurisdiction to consider it under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4). Because Doyle cannot prevail on the merits of his appeal, we pretermit consideration of the jurisdictional issue. See United States v. Weathersby, 958 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir.1992).

Doyle incorrectly asserts that the district court failed to provide sufficient justification for the sentence. The court stated that it read his background information in the Presentence Report (PSR) and that it considered the evidence, the violation, Doyle’s admission of the violation, the arguments of counsel, and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining the sentence. According to the PSR, Doyle has a criminal history of category VI, the result of 12 convictions for crimes such as passing worthless checks, stealing cars, burglary, embezzlement, assault, and possession of cocaine. The PSR also described additional arrests for crimes such as going AWOL from the military, forgery, theft, and child molestation. In announcing the sentence, the district court explained that it considered the policy statements and the recommended sentencing range of 8-14 months, but they “[did] not begin to address” Doyle’s conduct. Accordingly, Doyle’s 24-month sentence was reasonable and was not imposed in violation of law. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir.2005).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the Government’s motions are DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court lias 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: *

Richard Keith Doyle appeals the sentence he received upon revocation of his term of supervised release. He argues that the sentence is unreasonable because it exceeds the sentencing range recommended by the relevant policy statements in the Sentencing Guidelines and because the district court failed to specify its reasons for the sentence. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal or for summary affirmance on the basis that we lack jurisdiction to consider it under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4). Because Doyle cannot prevail on the merits of his appeal, we pretermit consideration of the jurisdictional issue. See United States v. Weathersby, 958 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir.1992).

Doyle incorrectly asserts that the district court failed to provide sufficient justification for the sentence. The court stated that it read his background information in the Presentence Report (PSR) and that it considered the evidence, the violation, Doyle’s admission of the violation, the arguments of counsel, and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining the sentence. According to the PSR, Doyle has a criminal history of category VI, the result of 12 convictions for crimes such as passing worthless checks, stealing cars, burglary, embezzlement, assault, and possession of cocaine. The PSR also described additional arrests for crimes such as going AWOL from the military, forgery, theft, and child molestation. In announcing the sentence, the district court explained that it considered the policy statements and the recommended sentencing range of 8-14 months, but they “[did] not begin to address” Doyle’s conduct. Accordingly, Doyle’s 24-month sentence was reasonable and was not imposed in violation of law. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir.2005).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the Government’s motions are DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court lias 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)

235 F. App'x 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-doyle-ca5-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack