TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Moody

United States v. Moody, 277 F.3d 719 (5th Cir. 2001)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 3, 2001
Docket
No. 00-51242
Citations
277 F.3d 7192001 WL 1643920
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-51242 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TAMMY MOODY, also known as Tammy Hope, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (SA-95-CR-296-ALL) -------------------- June 29, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant Tammy Moody appeals the sentence of

supervised release imposed following revocation of her original

supervised release. Moody had been indicted pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

§ 841 (a)(1) for possession with the intent to distribute

methamphetamine, and the government had sought to enhance that

charge pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(B). She subsequently

pleaded guilty to the enhanced charge, stipulating in her plea

agreement to possession of 142 grams of the substance. Invoking

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Moody now argues that * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. the district court erred in resentencing her to a four-year term of

supervised release when the indictment had not charged her with

possession of a specific amount of methamphetamine.

We will uphold a sentence after revocation of supervised

release “‘unless it is in violation of law or is plainly

unreasonable.’" United States v. Stiefel, 207 F.3d 256, 259 (5th

Cir. 2000)(quoting United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 89 (5th

Cir. 1994)). Even if we assumed arguendo that an Apprendi argument

can be raised in the appeal of a sentence imposed following

revocation of supervised release, Moody’s argument nevertheless

fails because in the plea agreement she stipulated to possessing

142 grams of methamphetamine. Apprendi is therefore inapplicable.

See,e.g., United States v. Harper, 246 F.3d 520, 529-31 (6th Cir.

2001). Based on the quantity of methamphetamine stipulated by

Moody in her plea, the district court could sentence her to a term

of supervised release “of at least 4 years.” See 21 U.S.C.

§ 841 (b)(1)(B). The court was therefore authorized, pursuant to 18

§ U.S.C. 3583(h), to resentence her to a four-year term of

supervised release following revocation, and her Apprendi argument

is unavailing.

AFFIRMED.

2

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2023: 120232026peak 2023 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. JonesNo. 22-30480 (5th Cir. Oct. 4, 2023)

Most recent

  1. United States v. JonesNo. 22-30480 (5th Cir. Oct. 4, 2023)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) 24,918
United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87 (5th Cir. 1994) 139
United States v. David Harper (99-6485) & Juan Garcia (99-6543), 246 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2001) 73
United States v. Stiefel, 207 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2000) 23

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list