United States v. Kimberly Nash

554 F. App'x 296
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 11, 2014
Docket12-51277
StatusUnpublished

This text of 554 F. App'x 296 (United States v. Kimberly Nash) 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. Kimberly Nash, 554 F. App'x 296 (5th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Kimberly Renee Nash, Texas prisoner # 1801253, pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery and was sentenced to serve 151 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. In this appeal, she challenges the district court’s denial of her request to have her federal sentence run concurrently to the state sentence she is now serving. Because Nash’s request challenges the execution of her sentence, it is best classed as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Reyes-Requena v. United *297 States, 243 F.3d 893, 900 (5th Cir.2001); see also Jones v. Joslin, 635 F.3d 673, 674 (5th Cir.2011); Hunter v. Tamez, 622 F.3d 427, 428 (5th Cir.2010). When considering a ruling on a § 2241 petition, we conduct a de novo review of the district court’s legal conclusions and examine its factual findings for clear error. Royal v. Tombone, 141 F.3d 596, 599 (5th Cir.1998).

District courts have discretion to decide whether to impose a federal sentence to run consecutively or concurrently to an anticipated state sentence. United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1217 (5th Cir.1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.2006); Setser v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 1466-73, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012). The district court did not err by denying Nash’s request for concurrent sentences. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and Nash’s request for appointed counsel is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

Related

Royal v. Tombone
141 F.3d 596 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Candia
454 F.3d 468 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
Hunter v. Tamez
622 F.3d 427 (Fifth Circuit, 2010)
Jones v. Joslin
635 F.3d 673 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Welton Brown
920 F.2d 1212 (Fifth Circuit, 1991)
Setser v. United States
132 S. Ct. 1463 (Supreme Court, 2012)
Jose Evaristo Reyes-Requena v. United States
243 F.3d 893 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
554 F. App'x 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kimberly-nash-ca5-2014.