United States v. Lee
This text of United States v. Lee (United States v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7475
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GLEN ALAN LEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-129)
Submitted: April 9, 1996 Decided: April 19, 1996
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Hendricks Childress, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appel- lant. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion to the extent that Appellant was
incorrectly sentenced as a career offender, and resentencing Appel-
lant based on an additional amount of uncharged drugs pursuant to
USSG 2D1.1, comment. (n.12) (Nov. 1994). Appellant's objection is that the additional drug amount was not included in calculating
Appellant's original sentence. We have reviewed the record and the
district court's opinion and find no reversible error. The district
court properly considered Appellant's sentence de novo, entertain- ing evidence relating to the additional amount of uncharged drugs
pursuant to USSG 2D1.1, comment. (n.12). See, e.g., United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 67 (4th Cir. 1993) (concerning resentencing
upon appellate remand). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Lee, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lee-ca4-1996.