United States v. James D. Bertrau

940 F.2d 663, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23331, 1991 WL 138443
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJuly 29, 1991
Docket90-1378
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 940 F.2d 663 (United States v. James D. Bertrau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. James D. Bertrau, 940 F.2d 663, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23331, 1991 WL 138443 (6th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

940 F.2d 663

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James D. BERTRAU, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-1378.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

July 29, 1991.

Before RALPH B. GUY, Jr. and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and HULL, Chief District Judge*

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

James Bertrau pleaded guilty to three counts of drug and income tax related charges and was sentenced to a ten (10) year term of imprisonment. Bertrau filed a motion for reduction of sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) (pre-November 1987 version). The motion was later granted to reflect a new sentence of seven (7) years. Bertrau moved for reconsideration and this motion was denied. The instant appeal followed. The parties have briefed the issues.

Upon consideration, we find no reversible error in the district court proceedings. In United States v. Fry, 831 F.2d 664, 668-69 (6th Cir.1987), a panel of this court set forth the responsibilities incumbent upon a defendant seeking to assert a failure by the trial court to comply with the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D). Bertrau's general comments to the sentencing judge on the nature of his offense and other matters fall short of the Fry requirements. The appeal is meritless.

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Thomas G. Hull, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation

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

Related

Armbrustmacher v. Redburn (In Re Redburn)
202 B.R. 917 (W.D. Michigan, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
940 F.2d 663, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23331, 1991 WL 138443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-d-bertrau-ca6-1991.