Opinion

United States v. Ashlea Brown

  • 404 F. App'x 878
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
Dec 15, 2010
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Davis, Per Curiam, Smith, Southwick
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 65.9%

The opinion

Case: 10-10312 Document: 00511322038 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2010

No. 10-10312

Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ASHLEA DANIELLE BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 4:09-CR-151-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ashlea Brown appeals the 37-month sentence imposed following her guilty

plea conviction of bank robbery. She argues that the district court lacked the

*

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.

Case: 10-10312 Document: 00511322038 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2010

No. 10-10312

authority to order that her sentence be served consecutively to state court sen-

tences that had not yet been imposed, but she concedes that the issue is fore-

closed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991), abro-

gated on other grounds, United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.

2006). The government moves to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver

provision in Brown’s plea agreement or, under Brown, for summary affirmance.

The government alternatively moves for an extension of time to file a brief.

Contrary to Brown’s argument, she is not entitled to appeal based on the

exception to her waiver for appeals of sentences exceeding the statutory maxi-

mum, because her sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum term of 20

years. See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a); United States v. Cortez, 413 F.3d 502, 503 (5th

Cir. 2005). Thus, we do not address the merits of Brown’s challenge to her sen-

tence.

Because Brown’s appeal is barred by her appeal waiver, the motion to dis-

miss the appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The motions for

summary affirmance and for an extension of time to file a brief are DENIED as

unnecessary.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.