United States v. Hargett

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Hargett

125 F. App'x 600

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 20, 2005

Docket04-60647

StatusUnpublished

This text of 125 F. App'x 600 (United States v. Hargett) 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. Hargett, 125 F. App'x 600 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Thomas Lee Hargett, federal prisoner # 11123-042, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Hargett pleaded guilty in 2000 to conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, As the amendment on which Hargett relies was in effect at the time he was sentenced, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider Hargett’s motion. See United *601 States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994).

We decline to address Hargett’s argument that, pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the use of prior convictions to enhance his sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, because Hargett raised this issue for the first time in his reply brief. See United States v. Hoster, 988 F.2d 1374, 1383 (5th Cir.1993).

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court on the basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Thomas Lee Hargett, federal prisoner # 11123-042, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Hargett pleaded guilty in 2000 to conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, As the amendment on which Hargett relies was in effect at the time he was sentenced, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider Hargett’s motion. See United *601 States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994).

We decline to address Hargett’s argument that, pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the use of prior convictions to enhance his sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, because Hargett raised this issue for the first time in his reply brief. See United States v. Hoster, 988 F.2d 1374, 1383 (5th Cir.1993).

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court on the basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.

*

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)

125 F. App'x 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hargett-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack