United States v. Searcy ( 1998 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 29 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-3040
(D.C. No. 96-CR-10054)
JONATHAN SEARCY, (District of Kansas)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Jonathan W. Searcy appeals his sentence of 97 months. The only issue he raises is
that the district court should have made his sentence concurrent with another he is serving
on a separate conviction.
We have already held a district court has “broad discretion” to choose between
concurrent or consecutive sentences. United States v. McCarty, 82 F.3d 943, 950 (10th
Cir. 1996). This discretion is guided by the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) and (b) and
U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 setting forth applicable factors to be considered in choosing a sentence.
Appellant points to no abuse of the district court’s discretion or violation of the statutory
and guideline principles committed by the court in sentencing. Indeed, in his Anders
brief (Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) ) counsel candidly admits the district
court did not err. We agree.
AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-2-