United States v. Campbell, 139 F.3d 820 (11th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Campbell, 139 F.3d 820 (11th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Isabel Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 821 Reviewing sentencing court's determination of defendant's role6 citing casesA sentencing court's determination of a defendant's role in an offense is a factual finding reviewed for clear error.3 citing courts put it this way · 4 listed here
  • United States v. Isabel Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999).published 2 cites
    (A sentencing court’s determination of a defendant’s role in an offense is a factual finding reviewed for clear error.)
  • United States v. De Varon, 136 F.3d 740 (11th Cir. 1998).published 2 cites
    (A sentencing court’s determination of a defendant’s role in an offense is a factual finding reviewed for clear error.)
  • United States v. Raul Antonio Guzman-Dearco, 208 F. App'x 734 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    United States v. Campbell, 139 F.3d 820, 821-22 (11th Cir.1998).
  • United States v. Murphy, 193 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999).published 2 cites
    See United States v. Campbell, 139 F.3d 820, 821-22 (11th Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Donaldson, 915 F.2d 612, 615 (10th Cir. 1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Campbell
97-4076.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 21, 1998.
Published opinion
139 F.3d 820
1998 WL 188109
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Khadijah S. CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-4076.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

July 22, 1999.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. No. 96-646-CR-LCN,

Lenore C. Nesbitt, Judge.

Before RONEY and LAY*, Senior Circuit Judges.**.

[*~820–822]

PER CURIAM:

On April 21, 1998, we filed an opinion vacating the judgment in this case and remanding for re-sentencing. United States v. Campbell, 139 F.3d 820 (11th Cir.1998). Our decision followed the same line of reasoning as a prior panel of this circuit in United States v. De Varon, 136 F.3d 740 (11th Cir.1998). We held that it was improper for the sentencing court to consider a fact that "relates solely to Campbell's status as a drug courier," citing United States v. Veloza, 83 F.3d 380 (11th Cir.1996).

On motion of the government, we stayed the mandate in this case until rehearing en banc of De Varon. The full court has now issued its opinion which overrules the precedents set in United States v. Veloza, 83 F.3d 380 (11th Cir.1996) and United States v. De Varon, 136 F.3d 740 (11th Cir.1998). See United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir.1999) (en banc). In light of that en banc opinion, we vacate our prior opinion and affirm the judgment and sentence in this case.

[*~821–822]

* Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. ** This decision is rendered by a quorum, due to the retirement of then-Chief Judge Hatchett on May 14, 1999. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

It was not improper for the district court to rely on factors relating to defendant's status as a drug courier in denying her a minor role adjustment. A review of the record reveals that there was no clear error in the determination that defendant was not entitled to a minor role adjustment in her sentence.

AFFIRMED.