United States v. Wilson ( 1997 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40284
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NICHELLE RENAYE WILSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:95-CR-25-2
- - - - - - - - - -
October 21, 1997
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nichelle Renaye Wilson appeals her sentence for conspiracy
to commit fraud in connection with access devices and for fraud
in connection with access devices. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371,
1029(a)(2). She argues that the sentences meted out to her and
her codefendant were widely disparate based solely on the
differences in their criminal past and that she should have been
sentenced to the lower end of the sentencing range, 27 months.
The argument lacks citation to the record and to any applicable
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-40284
-2-
law. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6). Even if the argument was
properly presented, there is no legal issue for our
consideration.
A district court has discretion to sentence within the
applicable range when the range does not exceed 24 months.
United States v. Matovsky, 935 F.2d 719, 721 (5th Cir. 1991).
The range in question spans six months. A guideline sentence is
“upheld unless the appellant demonstrates that it was imposed in
violation of the law, was imposed as a result of an incorrect
application of the guidelines, or was outside the range of the
applicable guidelines and was unreasonable.” United States v.
Harris, 104 F.3d 1465, 1474 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 66
U.S.L.W. 3256 (U.S. Oct. 6, 1997).
This appeal is frivolous and is thus DISMISSED. See 5th
Cir. R. 42.2. Counsel is hereby warned that pursuing frivolous
appeals invites sanctions. See United States v. Burleson, 22
F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994). An appointed attorney who believes
his client's case is frivolous should file a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in conjunction with a
motion to withdraw from representation of the defendant.
APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.