United States v. Crow, 217 F. App'x 373 (5th Cir. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Crow, 217 F. App'x 373 (5th Cir. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: United States v. Fasano, 577 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2009)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 374 cited at this page1 citing case
  • United States v. Fasano, 577 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2009).published
    Id. at 374-75. 4 . 18 U.S.C. § 3600 (a) states in relevant part: (1) The applicant asserts, under penalty of perjury, that the applicant is actually innocent of— (A) the Federal offense for which the applicant is under a sentence of impris…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Phillip Joseph CROW, Defendant-Appellant
05-11045.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb 13, 2007.
Unpublished opinion
217 F. App'x 373
Paul E. Gartner, Jr., Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Raymond J. Rodgers, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Barksdale, Garza, Clement.
Unpublished
PER CURIAM: *

Phillip Joseph Crow pleaded guilty to assault of a federal employee and using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a)(1), 111(b), and 1114; 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). He appeals the sentence imposed for his assault offense. Crow asserts that a six-level enhancement to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(b) was improper because the enhancement was based on the district court’s clearly erroneous finding that Crow’s assault was motivated by the victim’s status as a government employee. Based on the record as a whole, such a finding was plausible and therefore not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560, 584 (5th Cir.2006).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.