United States v. Khadijah S. Campbell

181 F.3d 1263, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 16926, 1999 WL 528213
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedJuly 22, 1999
Docket97-4076
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 181 F.3d 1263 (United States v. Khadijah S. Campbell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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. Khadijah S. Campbell, 181 F.3d 1263, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 16926, 1999 WL 528213 (11th Cir. 1999).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On April 21, 1998, we filed an opinion vacating the judgment in this case and remanding for re-sentencing. United States v. Campbell, 139 F.3d 820 (11th Cir.1998). Our decision followed the same line of reasoning as a prior panel of this circuit in United States v. De Varon, 136 F.3d 740 (11th Cir.1998). We held that it was improper for the sentencing court to consider a fact that “relates solely to Campbell’s status as a drug courier,” citing United States v. Veloza, 83 F.3d 380 (11th Cir.1996).

On motion of the government, we stayed the mandate in this case until rehearing en banc of De Varón. The full court has now issued its opinion which overrules the precedents set in United States v. Veloza, 83 F.3d 380 (11th Cir.1996) and United States v. De Varon, 136 F.3d 740 (11th Cir.1998). See United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir.1999) (en banc). In light of that en banc opinion, we vacate our prior opinion and affirm the judgment and sentence in this case.

It was not improper for the district court to rely on factors relating to defendant’s status as a drug courier in denying her a minor role adjustment. A review of the record reveals that there was no clear error in the determination that defendant was not entitled to a minor role adjustment in her sentence.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

United States v. Jose Maria Barrios-Ipuana
371 F. App'x 27 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Walter Canpaz
276 F. App'x 878 (Eleventh Circuit, 2007)
Pedro Sera v. United States
Eighth Circuit, 2001
United States of America v. Pedro Sera
256 F.3d 778 (Eighth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Maira Bernice Guzman
236 F.3d 830 (Seventh Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Murphy
193 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
181 F.3d 1263, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 16926, 1999 WL 528213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-khadijah-s-campbell-ca11-1999.