United States v. Hashimoto

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Hashimoto. Read the opinion of the Court — 139 F.3d 898
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided March 12, 1998·No. 97-30264·Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30264

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SCOTT HASHIMOTO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 96-CR-101-R

- - - - - - - - - -

March 4, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Scott Hashimoto appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(1)(A).

Hashimoto’s contention that the district court erroneously relied on the hearsay statements of unnamed codefendants is not supported by the record. See United States v. Manrique, 959 F.2d

*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 97-30264

-2-

1155, 1158 (5th Cir. 1992); FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(1); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3.

Hashimoto also argues that the district court clearly erred in imposing a two-level offense-level enhancement based on his role as a manager or supervisor in the offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The district court misapplied the guideline when it determined that Hashimoto’s exercise of “independent control over the drugs and money involved in the offense” satisfied the guideline requirements. See id., comment. (n.2); United States v. Giraldo, 111 F.3d 21, 24 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 322 (1997). A defendant’s exercise of “management responsibility over the property, assets, or activities of a criminal organization” may warrant an upward departure, but not an offense-level enhancement under § 3B1.1. See § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2); Giraldo, 111 F.3d at 24. Accordingly, Hashimoto’s sentence is VACATED and this case is REMANDED for resentencing as to this issue.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

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

United States v. Hashimoto, (5th Cir. 1998).

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

Related

United States v. Giraldo
111 F.3d 21 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)