United States v. Chandler ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10929
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT KEITH CHANDLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:00-CR-99-2-A
--------------------
June 21, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Robert Keith Chandler appeals from his conviction of
conspiracy to commit theft of United States mail, theft of United
States mail, and aiding and abetting. Chandler contends that the
dismissal of charges against two of his codefendants rendered the
evidence insufficient to support his conspiracy conviction; that
the district court failed to provide notice of the reasons for its
upward departure from the guideline sentencing range; that the
district court failed to consider intermediate offense-level
sentencing ranges; that the district court did not provide adequate
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
reasons for departure; and that he received ineffective assistance
of counsel.
First, the dismissal of charges against Chandler’s two
codefendants did not render the evidence insufficient to support
Chandler’s conviction. See United States v. Zuniga-Salinas, 952
F.2d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 1992)(en banc). Second, the probation
officer outlined the reasons for an upward departure in Chandler’s
presentence report, and the district court issued an order before
sentencing notifying Chandler of its tentative decision to depart.
Chandler received adequate notice. See Burns v. United States, 501
U.S. 129, 138 (1991). Third, the district court’s articulation of
its departure decision indicated that it wished to depart to the
statutory maximum regardless of an intermediate sentencing range,
satisfying the requirement that the category ultimately chosen be
explained. See United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 662-63 (5th
Cir. 1993)(en banc). Fourth, the district court provided
acceptable reasons for the departure. United States v. McKenzie,
991 F.2d 203, 204 (5th Cir. 1993). Chandler’s criminal history
strongly suggests that he has failed to get the message that crime
does not pay. Finally, Chandler has failed to show that defense
counsel was deficient for not calling certain witnesses to testify
on his behalf. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
2