United States v. Lessner

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Lessner

699 F. App'x 385

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 2017

DocketNo. 17-10245 Summary Calendar

StatusPublished

This text of 699 F. App'x 385 (United States v. Lessner) 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. Lessner, 699 F. App'x 385 (5th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

*

Christopher Lessner pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Lessner to 63 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Lessner argues that the district court plainly erred under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by imposing a sentence based on factual findings that were not supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed under current circuit law, but he raises the claim solely to preserve it for further review.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits. Summary affirmance is proper where, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Because Lessner’s arguments are indeed foreclosed by United States v. Tuma, 738 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2013), the Government’s motion for summary affir-mance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits is DENIED as unnecessary.'

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,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

PER CURIAM:

*

Christopher Lessner pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Lessner to 63 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Lessner argues that the district court plainly erred under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by imposing a sentence based on factual findings that were not supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed under current circuit law, but he raises the claim solely to preserve it for further review.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits. Summary affirmance is proper where, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Because Lessner’s arguments are indeed foreclosed by United States v. Tuma, 738 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2013), the Government’s motion for summary affir-mance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits is DENIED as unnecessary.'

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,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

699 F. App'x 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lessner-ca5-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack