United States v. Randy Pittman

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Randy Pittman

698 F. App'x 175

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 28, 2017

Docket16-10251 Summary Calendar

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 698 F. App'x 175 (United States v. Randy Pittman) 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. Randy Pittman, 698 F. App'x 175 (5th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Randy Pittman pleaded guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release (“SR”). The term of SR exceeds the statutory maximum term for Pittman’s offense, as the parties agree. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2), 3559(a)(3), 3583(b)(2); United States v. Vera, 542 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment is therefore VACATED as to the term of SR, and this matter is REMANDED to modify the sentence consistently with § 3583(b)(2).

To the extent that Pittman reurges the arguments he originally put forth in his response to counsel’s now-withdrawn motion filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he does not have the right to hybrid representation or simultaneous representation by himself and counsel. See United States v. Villafranca, 844 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1393, 197 L.Ed.2d 568 (2017). After the close of briefing, counsel filed a motion to withdraw at the request of Pittman, and Pittman filed a motion to proceed pro se. Neither counsel nor Pittman has established a “conflict of interest or other most pressing circumstances” warranting removal of counsel. Fifth Circuit Plan Under the CJA § 5B. The motions are therefore 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

PER CURIAM: *

Randy Pittman pleaded guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release (“SR”). The term of SR exceeds the statutory maximum term for Pittman’s offense, as the parties agree. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2), 3559(a)(3), 3583(b)(2); United States v. Vera, 542 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment is therefore VACATED as to the term of SR, and this matter is REMANDED to modify the sentence consistently with § 3583(b)(2).

To the extent that Pittman reurges the arguments he originally put forth in his response to counsel’s now-withdrawn motion filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he does not have the right to hybrid representation or simultaneous representation by himself and counsel. See United States v. Villafranca, 844 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1393, 197 L.Ed.2d 568 (2017). After the close of briefing, counsel filed a motion to withdraw at the request of Pittman, and Pittman filed a motion to proceed pro se. Neither counsel nor Pittman has established a “conflict of interest or other most pressing circumstances” warranting removal of counsel. Fifth Circuit Plan Under the CJA § 5B. The motions are therefore 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. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 F. App'x 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-randy-pittman-ca5-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack