United States v. Jewell Chatman

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 2, 1997
Docket97-2319
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Jewell Chatman (United States v. Jewell Chatman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Jewell Chatman, (8th Cir. 1997).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2319 ___________

United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Jewell Leroy Chatman, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________

Submitted: November 19, 1997

Filed: December 2, 1997 ___________

Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Jewell Leroy Chatman pleaded guilty to robbing a federally-insured Minneapolis, Minnesota bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Based on a total offense level of 22 and a Category IV criminal history, the presentence report (PSR) recommended a Guidelines imprisonment range of 63 to 78 months. Chatman sought a downward departure from this Guidelines range pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3, p.s. (1995), arguing that Category IV overstated his criminal history and Category II would be more appropriate. The district court1 refused to depart downward. Noting that, in addition to the five countable convictions underlying his criminal history score, Chatman had been charged with criminal conduct in five other instances, the district court concluded Category IV overstated neither the seriousness of the defendant&s criminal history nor his likelihood of recidivism. The court, however, granted the government&s motion for downward departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1, p.s. (1995), and sentenced Chatman to 46 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. Chatman appeals, and we affirm.

We conclude that, because the district court was aware of its authority to depart, Chatman&s sentence is unreviewable. See United States v. Hall, 7 F.3d 1394, 1396 (8th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

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

Related

United States v. Rickie Lee Hall
7 F.3d 1394 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Jewell Chatman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jewell-chatman-ca8-1997.