United States v. Tavares

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Tavares

39 F. App'x 997

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJuly 31, 2002

DocketNo. 01-3963

StatusPublished

This text of 39 F. App'x 997 (United States v. Tavares) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. Tavares, 39 F. App'x 997 (6th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[998]*998 ORDER

Frank Tavares appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

In 2001, Tavares pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced Tavares to 65 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release, and the court imposed a $100 special assessment. In this timely appeal, Tavares’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Tavares has not responded to his counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Upon review, we affirm Tavares’s conviction and sentence. We specifically note that the extent of the district court’s downward departure is not reviewable on appeal. At sentencing, the court did depart downward, granting a government motion under USSG § 5K1.1 and reducing Tavares’s Total Offense Level by one point. While Tavares argued that the court should have departed downward further, he cannot challenge on appeal the extent of a downward departure. United States v. Nesbitt, 90 F.3d 164, 166 (6th Cir.1996).

Further, we have examined the record and conclude that no reversible error is apparent.

Accordingly, this court grants counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirms the district court’s judgment. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

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

[998]*998 ORDER

Frank Tavares appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

In 2001, Tavares pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced Tavares to 65 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release, and the court imposed a $100 special assessment. In this timely appeal, Tavares’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Tavares has not responded to his counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Upon review, we affirm Tavares’s conviction and sentence. We specifically note that the extent of the district court’s downward departure is not reviewable on appeal. At sentencing, the court did depart downward, granting a government motion under USSG § 5K1.1 and reducing Tavares’s Total Offense Level by one point. While Tavares argued that the court should have departed downward further, he cannot challenge on appeal the extent of a downward departure. United States v. Nesbitt, 90 F.3d 164, 166 (6th Cir.1996).

Further, we have examined the record and conclude that no reversible error is apparent.

Accordingly, this court grants counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirms the district court’s judgment. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 F. App'x 997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-tavares-ca6-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack