United States v. Ford

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Ford. Read the opinion of the Court — 95 F.3d 54
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 16, 1999·No. 98-60325·Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60325 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MELVIN FORD,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:97-CR-4-ALL - - - - - - - - - -

June 15, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melvin Ford appeals from his sentence following his guilty-

plea convictions for violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.

§ 1319(c)(1)(A). Ford argues that the district court erred by

failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his objections to

the PSR and that the court improperly based his sentence upon

charges in the indictment that had been dismissed. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Because Ford

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 98-60325 -2-

did not offer any rebuttal evidence to refute the facts contained

in the PSR, the district court was free to adopt those findings

without further inquiry. See United States v. Angulo, 927 F.2d

202, 204-05 (5th Cir. 1991). Further, Ford has not shown that

the district court increased his sentence in any way based upon

the dismissed felony counts in the indictment. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.

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

United States v. Ford, (5th Cir. 1999).

United States v. Ford (United States v. Ford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Luis Eduardo Angulo
927 F.2d 202 (Fifth Circuit, 1991)