eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 1996-04

United States v. Stenson ( 1996 )


Menu:
 
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10686
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER STENSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:94-CR-57-2
- - - - - - - - - -
April 5, 1996
Before WIENER, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Retained counsel for Joseph Christopher Stenson requests
permission to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967).    Stenson has filed an initial and a supplemental
response as well as several motions.
The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict
convicting Stenson of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, cocaine
base.    United States v. Lewis,
    902 F.2d 1176
    , 1180-81 (5th Cir.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-10686
-2-
1990); United States v. Gardea Carrasco,
    830 F.2d 41
    , 44 (5th
Cir. 1987).   The Government did not breach the plea agreement.
United States v. Watson,
    988 F.2d 544
    , 548 (5th Cir. 1993), cert.
denied,
    114 S. Ct. 698 
    (1994).    Stenson's general allegations
cannot support a claim of selective prosecution.     United States
v. Sparks,
    2 F.3d 574
    , 580 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S.
Ct. 720, 899, 1548 (1994).    Finally, Stenson's challenge on
vagueness grounds to the sentencing guidelines is foreclosed by
Fifth Circuit precedent.     United States v. Fisher, 2
    2 F.3d 574
    ,
579 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
    115 S. Ct. 529 
    (1994).
An independent review of counsel's brief, the points raised
by Stenson in his initial and supplemental responses to the
brief, and the record reveals no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    .   Accordingly, counsel's motion is
GRANTED and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
Stenson's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as
moot.   Stenson's motion for extension of time to file a
supplemental response is DENIED.