United States v. Campbell , 139 F.3d 820 ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           PUBLISH
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT                   FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ________________________          ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    07/22/99
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    No. 97-4076                      CLERK
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 96-646-CR
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    KHADIJAH S. CAMPBELL,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    _________________________
    (July 22, 1999)
    Before RONEY and LAY*, Senior Circuit Judges.**
    PER CURIAM:
    _______________
    *Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting
    by designation.
    ** This decision is rendered by a quorum, due to the retirement of then-Chief Judge
    Hatchett on May 14, 1999. 
    28 U.S.C. § 46
    (d).
    On April 21, 1998, we filed an opinion vacating the judgment in this case and
    remanding for re-sentencing. United States v. Campbell, 
    139 F.3d 820
     (11th Cir.
    1998). Our decision followed the same line of reasoning as a prior panel of this
    circuit in United States v. DeVaron, 
    136 F.3d 740
     (11th Cir. 1998). We held that it
    was improper for the sentencing court to consider a fact that “relates solely to
    Campbell’s status as a drug courier,” citing United States v. Velosa, 
    83 F.3d 380
     (11th
    Cir. 1996).
    On motion of the government, we stayed the mandate in this case until
    rehearing en banc of DeVaron. The full court has now issued its opinion which
    overrules the precedents set in United States v. Velosa, 
    83 F.3d 380
     (11th Cir. 1996)
    and United States v. DeVaron, 
    136 F.3d 740
     (11th Cir. 1998). See United States v.
    DeVaron, 
    175 F.3d 930
    , 11th Cir. 1999 (en banc). In light of that en banc opinion,
    we vacate our prior opinion and affirm the judgment and sentence in this case.
    It was not improper for the district court to rely on factors relating to
    defendant’s status as a drug courier in denying her a minor role adjustment. A review
    of the record reveals that there was no clear error in the determination that defendant
    was not entitled to a minor role adjustment in her sentence.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-4076

Citation Numbers: 139 F.3d 820

Filed Date: 4/21/1998

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016