United States v. Lawrence , 89 F. App'x 463 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 12, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50757
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LOUIS ZENO LAWRENCE, also known as
Lewis Zeno Lawrence,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-97-CR-004-3-SS
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Louis Zeno Lawrence, federal prisoner # 45605-080, appeals
his resentencing for his convictions for possession of marijuana
with intent to distribute and for conspiracy to commit money
laundering. Lawrence was originally sentenced to concurrent
terms of 292 and 240 months, respectively. In conjunction with a
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed by Lawrence, the district court
altered Lawrence’s sentence in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), and sentenced Lawrence to consecutive terms
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-50757
-2-
of 240 months for the money laundering offense and 52 months for
the drug offense. On appeal, this court concluded that Apprendi
was not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review,
vacated Lawrence’s sentence, and ordered that Lawrence be
resentenced to his original sentence.
Lawrence, who is proceeding pro se on appeal, raises
numerous challenges to his indictment, his guilty plea, and his
sentence. “The only issues on remand properly before the
district court are those issues arising out of the correction of
the sentence ordered by this court.” United States v. Marmolejo,
139 F.3d 528, 531 (5th Cir. 1998). Because Lawrence could have
raised these issues in his direct appeal in 1997, he may not
present them now. See id.Lawrence also contends that the district court wrongly
resentenced him in absentia. The mandate of this court
specifically required the district court to reimpose Lawrence’s
original sentence, at which time he was present and had an
opportunity for allocution. Therefore, the sentence received by
Lawrence was not a “new” sentence requiring his presence. Cf.
United States v. Patterson, 42 F.3d 246, 248 (5th Cir. 1994).
Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The Government’s motion to seal its appellate brief is
GRANTED.