U.S. v. Meshack
| Citation | 244 F.3d 367 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-50669,99-50669 |
| Parties | (5th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HUGH VON MESHACK; LAWAYNE THOMAS; LINDA PARKER; TERRANCE IAN HODGES, also known as Guda; Defendants - Appellants |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas, Waco
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion, August 28, 2000, 5 Cir. 2000, 225 F.3d 556)
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED in part: We STRIKE footnote 20 in our previous opinion and replace it with the following:
On remand, the district court must resentence Meshack pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C). Due to his prior convictions, Meshack may be resentenced to a maximum of 30 years.
We also STRIKE the following text in Section III: "See United States v. Rios-Quintero, 204 F.3d 214, 215 (5th Cir. 2000) ()." We substitute in its place: "See United States v. Johnson, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) ()."
Finally, we STRIKE the text in Section III A beginning with "We decline to exercise our discretion in this manner here because Hodges can show no meaningful benefit . . ." and ending with "Thus, we find there was no plain error in Hodges's sentence for marijuana possession." In its place we insert the following:
We decline to exercise our discretion in this manner here because Hodges can show no meaningful benefit he would receive from vacating this sentence.19 Cf. United States v. Williams, 183 F.3d 458, 464 (5th Cir. 1999) (). He will not serve less time as a result of resentencing on this count. Moreover, he has not asserted that our decision not to correct the sentence will have collateral consequences. Thus, we find there was no plain error in Hodges's sentence for marijuana...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gardner
...paragraph two of the syllabus. Accord United States v. Meshack (C.A.5, 2000), 225 F.3d 556, 580, modified in part on other grounds (2001), 244 F.3d 367 (rejecting the argument that Richardson required reversal of a money-laundering conviction because the jury was not instructed that it had ......
-
U.S. v. Humphrey
...v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Meshack, 225 F.3d 556, 575 (5th Cir.2000), amended on reh'g, 244 F.3d 367 (5th Cir.2001). Moreover, many of our own subsequent decisions have adhered to Page's plain error standard in addressing Apprendi challenges. See, e.g......
-
Araromi v. United States
...v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 2000) and United States v. Meshack, 225 F.3d 556 (5th Cir. 2000), amended in part on r'hrg., 244 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2001), which Petitioner cites in support of his Apprendi/Jones argument, see Mot. 42, are not to the contrary. In Doggett, the defendant's s......
-
U.S. v. Seher
...(9th Cir.2002); United States v. Meshack, 225 F.3d 556, 580 n. 23 (5th Cir.2000), reh'g granted on other grounds, United States v. Meshack, 244 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Navarro, 145 F.3d 580, 592 (3d Cir.1998); United States v. Holmes, 44 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (2d Cir. The mo......