United States v. Olasebikan ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-40465
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    SUNDAY OLASEBIKAN, a/k/a Sunny,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 9:94-CR-12-9
    - - - - - - - - - -
    April 17, 1996
    Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Sunday Olasebikan appeals his conviction and sentence for
    conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.
    Olasebikan has shown no error with respect to his assertions
    that it was improper to charge him by information because two
    superseding indictments had been returned against him and that
    the sentencing guidelines contain a sentencing cap of one year
    for first-time offenders who plead guilty to an information.
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 95-40465
    -2-
    The district court did not err by modifying Olasebikan’s
    judgment of conviction in accordance with United States v. Quaye,
    
    57 F.3d 447
    , 450-54 (5th Cir. 1995)
    Olasebikan has not demonstrated plain error by his assertion
    that his conviction should have been barred as violative of the
    Double Jeopardy Clause because he had already been punished for
    his crime by the seizure of a 1972 Chevelle.   United States v.
    Calverley, 
    37 F.3d 160
    , 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing
    United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , ____, 
    113 S. Ct. 1770
    ,
    1776-79 (1993)), cert. denied, 
    115 S. Ct. 1266
    (1995); United
    States v. Tilley, 
    18 F.3d 295
    , 298-99 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
    
    115 S. Ct. 574
    (1994).
    We will not address several new issues raised by Olasebikan
    for the first time in his reply brief.   United States v. Prince,
    
    868 F.2d 1379
    , 1386 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    493 U.S. 932
    (1989).
    AFFIRMED.