United States v. Newsome ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-50696
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    SKYLER STEPHEN NEWSOME,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ___________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. W-98-CR-74-5
    ___________________________________________
    April 14, 2000
    Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Skyler Stephen Newsome appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for
    aiding and abetting the possession and distribution of “crack” cocaine, in violation of
    
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) and 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
    . He asserts that the district court erred in
    denying his pre-sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea, in failing to hold an
    evidentiary hearing thereon, and in sentencing him.
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    Newsome sought to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that the prosecution
    misled him about his sentence.           This allegation was insufficient to warrant an
    evidentiary hearing, as it was found to be vague, unsubstantiated, and contrary to his
    sworn statement at rearraignment that, other than his discussions with his attorney
    concerning the sentencing guidelines, no one had made any promise, prophecy, or
    prediction regarding his sentence.2
    Considering the totality of the circumstances, Newsome did not establish a fair
    and just reason for the withdrawal of his guilty plea.3 The district court did not abuse
    its discretion in denying the motion for same. Finally, because Newsome knowingly
    and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence, the allegations of sentencing
    errors will not be considered.4
    The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
    2
    United States v. Dabdoub-Diaz, 
    599 F.2d 96
     (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that defendant’s
    conclusional allegation unsupported by specifics did not justify a hearing to relitigate
    representations made in open court).
    3
    Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e); United States v. Brewster, 
    137 F.3d 853
     (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
    
    119 S. Ct. 247
     (1998).
    4
    United States v. Melancon, 
    972 F.2d 566
     (5th Cir. 1992).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-50696

Filed Date: 4/17/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014