United States v. Robinson

129 F. App'x 102
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Robinson. Read the opinion of the Court — 115 F. App'x 259
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 20, 2005·No. 04-10237·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

In 1993, Lester Henry Robinson, federal prisoner #23967-077, was convicted following a guilty plea of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 5 kilograms of cocaine and at least 50 kilograms of cocaine base (crack) and sentenced to a life term of imprisonment. Robinson appeals the district court’s dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of his Fed. R.CrimP. 35(a) motion, challenging the drug quantity attributable to him for sentencing purposes and his life term of imprisonment.

Contrary to Robinson’s argument, because Robinson’s conspiracy offense continued well after November 1, 1987, the version of Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) applicable to offenses committed after that date applies. Cf . United States v. White, 869 F.2d 822, 826 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that the Sentencing Guidelines, effective November 1,1987, applied to case in which conspiracy offense continued after effective date of the Guidelines). Because Robinson’s Fed. R.CrimP. 35(a) motion was not filed within seven days of sentencing, the district court properly dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a); United States v. Lopez, 26 F.3d 512, 518-20 & n. 8 (5th Cir.1994).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

United States v. Robinson, 129 F. App'x 102 (5th Cir. 2005).

129 F. App'x 102 (United States v. Robinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Raymond Joseph Lopez
26 F.3d 512 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. White
869 F.2d 822 (Fifth Circuit, 1989)