United States v. Noe

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 27, 2003
Docket02-10912
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Noe (United States v. Noe) 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. Noe, (5th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 27, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

No. 02-10912 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROLAND DALE NOE,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CR-16-1-A --------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roland Dale Noe appeals the 235-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) & (b).

The district court did not err in applying the

preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to a disputed sentencing

issue. See United States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1240 (5th

Cir. 1994). Noe did not meet his burden of showing that the

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 02-10912 -2-

information in the presentence report concerning relevant conduct

was unreliable. See United States v. Angulo, 927 F.2d 202, 205

(5th Cir. 1991). The district court did not err in determining

that methamphetamine sold by Noe in 1995-96 was relevant conduct

for sentencing purposes because the record supports a

determination that those sales were part of the same course of

conduct as the offense of conviction. See United States v.

Ocana, 204 F.3d 585, 588-89 (5th Cir. 2000). Finally, the

district court’s decision that Noe was not entitled to an

offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility was not

without foundation. See United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420,

458 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Chapa-Garza, 62 F.3d 118,

123 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

United States v. Solis
299 F.3d 420 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Luis Eduardo Angulo
927 F.2d 202 (Fifth Circuit, 1991)
United States v. Juan Chapa-Garza, Jr.
62 F.3d 118 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Flora Alicia Ocana
204 F.3d 585 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Noe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-noe-ca5-2003.