United States v. Williams

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Williams. Read the opinion of the Court — 132 F.3d 1055
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided December 13, 2000·No. 99-41257·Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41257 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEVIN WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:98-CR-166-1 -------------------- December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kevin Williams appeals the sentence imposed by the district

court after a jury found him guilty on two counts of possessing a

controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct.

2348 (2000), he argues that the district court erred by holding

him responsible at sentencing for a drug quantity that was

neither charged in the indictment nor proved beyond a reasonable

doubt. Because Williams did not raise this type of objection in

the district court, we review for plain error. See United States

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 99-41257 -2-

v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 525 (5th Cir. 1999). We perceive no

error, plain or otherwise. See United States v. Keith, 230 F.3d

784, 786-87 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.

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

United States v. Williams, (5th Cir. 2000).

United States v. Williams (United States v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Keith
230 F.3d 784 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2000)
United States v. James Anderson and Dean Hodge
174 F.3d 515 (Fifth Circuit, 1999)