United States v. Ricky D. Wade

3 F.3d 1577, 303 U.S. App. D.C. 293, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 29689, 1993 WL 342508
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedAugust 27, 1993
Docket92-3114
StatusUnpublished

This text of 3 F.3d 1577 (United States v. Ricky D. Wade) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. 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. Ricky D. Wade, 3 F.3d 1577, 303 U.S. App. D.C. 293, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 29689, 1993 WL 342508 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

Opinion

3 F.3d 1577

303 U.S.App.D.C. 293

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Ricky D. WADE, Appellant.

No. 92-3114.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Aug. 27, 1993.

Before: EDWARDS, SILBERMAN, and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 14(c). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the appellant's judgment of conviction and sentence be affirmed. In United States v. Doe, 934 F.2d 353 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 268 (1991), this court reversed United States v. Roberts, 726 F.Supp. 1359 (D.D.C.1989), upon which appellant chiefly relies in challenging the government motion requirement of U.S.S.G. Sec. 5K1.1. Appellant's citation to United States v. Justice, 877 F.2d 664 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 375 (1989); and United States v. White, 869 F.2d 822, 829 (5th Cir.1989), is likewise unavailing in light of this court's opinion in United States v. Ortez, 902 F.2d 61, 64 (D.C.Cir.1990). Finally, the Supreme Court in Wade v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 1844 (1992), rejected the argument raised by appellant at 8-9 of his brief. Under this controlling authority, appellant's challenges to his sentence are without merit. We note with extreme displeasure appellant's apparent lack of candor in failing to bring this contrary controlling authority to the attention of the court.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15.

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

Related

Wade v. United States
504 U.S. 181 (Supreme Court, 1992)
United States v. Roger Justice
877 F.2d 664 (Eighth Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Eduardo Ortez
902 F.2d 61 (D.C. Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Jane Doe
934 F.2d 353 (D.C. Circuit, 1991)
United States v. Roberts
726 F. Supp. 1359 (District of Columbia, 1989)
United States v. White
869 F.2d 822 (Fifth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 F.3d 1577, 303 U.S. App. D.C. 293, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 29689, 1993 WL 342508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ricky-d-wade-cadc-1993.