United States v. Dupaquier ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    __________________
    No. 96-30367
    Summary Calendar
    __________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    GARY AUGUST DUPAQUIER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ______________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
    Middle District of Louisiana
    ______________________________________________
    May 2, 1997
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Gary August Dupaquier appeals the sentence imposed after
    reversal on one count and remand for resentencing.     The district
    court did not commit plain error in departing upward from the
    guideline range at resentencing.     United States v. Vontsteen, 
    950 F.2d 1086
    , 1092-93 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 
    505 U.S. 1223
    , 
    112 S. Ct. 3039
    (1992).     See also United States v. Campbell,
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
    
    106 F.3d 64
    ,   68-69   (5th   Cir.       1997)   (adopting   the   "aggregate
    approach"   to    determine      whether      the    Pearce1    presumption   of
    vindictiveness attaches and holding that under such approach when
    sentence on remand is less severe than the original sentence, the
    presumption of vindictiveness does not arise).             Nor did it plainly
    err in increasing Dupaquier's offense level for resentencing based
    on his prior criminal history.          See United States v. Hawkins, 
    87 F.3d 722
    , 730 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    117 S. Ct. 408
    (1996);
    United States v. Singleton, 
    49 F.3d 129
    , 132-34 (5th Cir.), cert.
    denied, 
    116 S. Ct. 324
    (1995).
    Dupaquier's motion to temporarily stay proceedings in this
    court, have his attorney withdrawn, and proceed pro se so that he
    may file a supplemental brief in DENIED.             See Smith v. Collins, 
    977 F.2d 951
    , 962 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 
    501 U.S. 829
    , 
    114 S. Ct. 97
    (1993).
    AFFIRMED.
    1
    North Carolina v. Pearce, 
    395 U.S. 711
    , 
    89 S. Ct. 2072
    (1969).
    2