United States v. Moquete ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2003 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    7-2-2003
    USA v. Moquete
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 02-4497
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
    Recommended Citation
    "USA v. Moquete" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 390.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/390
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No. 02-4497
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    v.
    JUNIOR JOSE MOQUETE,
    Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Criminal Action No. 01-cr-00551-1)
    District Judge: Honorable Franklin S. VanAntwerpen
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    June 30, 2003
    Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and BECKER, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: July 2, 2003 )
    OPINION
    AM BRO, Circuit Judge
    In this criminal case, the District Court applied United States Sentencing Guideline
    § 5C1.2 to depart downward from the statutory minimum sentence of 120 months
    imprisonment. The Court sentenced Junior Jose Moquette to 78 months, within the
    adjusted Guideline range of 70 to 87 months.
    On appeal, Moquette “raises no legal question with respect to the downward
    departure of his sentence but challenges only the extent of the district court’s exercise of
    discretion.” United States v. Khalil, 
    132 F.3d 897
    , 898 (3d Cir. 1997). We do not have
    jurisdiction to review this discretionary decision. See 
    id.
    The appeal is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
    TO THE CLERK:
    Please file the foregoing Opinion.
    By the Court,
    /s/ Thomas L. Ambro
    Circuit Judge
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-4497

Filed Date: 7/2/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015