United States v. Newsome

89 F. App'x 466
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 15, 2004
Docket03-20465
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 F. App'x 466 (United States v. Newsome) 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. Newsome, 89 F. App'x 466 (5th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Leslie Ray Newsome (Newsome) appeals his sentence for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base following the revocation of his supervised release. Newsome argues that at the sentencing following the revocation of his supervised release, the district court expressly directed that his supervised release would be “on the same terms as we had before.” Newsome further argues that neither the previous supervision order nor the court’s oral pronouncement prohibited him from possessing a dangerous weapon. Newsome argues that the condition barring his possession of “any other dangerous weapon” must be stricken from the written judgment because it conflicts with the sentence orally pronounced by the district court.

For the reasons outlined in United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 937-38 (5th Cir.2003), we conclude that the district court’s omission of the dangerous weapon prohibition during the oral pronouncement of sentence did not create a conflict with the sentence set forth in the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

No. 03-10272
542 U.S. 912 (Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 F. App'x 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-newsome-ca5-2004.