United States v. Hosie James, Iii, A/K/A James Hosie, III

46 F.3d 407, 1995 WL 63150
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 16, 1995
Docket93-2516
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 46 F.3d 407 (United States v. Hosie James, Iii, A/K/A James Hosie, III) 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. Hosie James, Iii, A/K/A James Hosie, III, 46 F.3d 407, 1995 WL 63150 (5th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Hosie James, III, was convicted of possession with intent to distribute over 50 grams of crack cocaine. The probation officer determined that James’ guidelines sentence range was 151-to-188 months. The district court adopted the PSR and sentenced James to a term of 160 months. James argues that the district court failed to supply adequate reasons for choosing the 160-month sentence.

By statute a sentencing court must consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; the need for punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation; the available sentences; the guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; the need for consistency in sentencing; and the need for restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

If a defendant’s guidelines sentencing range exceeds twenty-four months, the district court must state in open court its reasons for the particular sentence that it has imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1). The sentencing court is to link the pertinent facts to the relevant statutory factor[s] supporting the sentence imposed. United States v. Duran, 37 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 344-35 (2nd Cir.1993), cert. denied — U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 1565, 1864, 128 L.Ed.2d 211, 485 (1994); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

James did not object to the district court’s allegedly inadequate reasons for imposing a 160-month sentence. Therefore, we review for plain error. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.1994) (en *408 banc). The requirements enunciated in Cal-verley have' not been met.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 F.3d 407, 1995 WL 63150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hosie-james-iii-aka-james-hosie-iii-ca5-1995.