Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KHADIJAH S. CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

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. DeVaron, 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. Velosa, 83 F.3d 380 (11th Cir. 1996).

On motion of the government, we stayed the mandate in this case until rehearing en banc of DeVaron. The full court has now issued its opinion which overrules the precedents set in United States v. Velosa, 83 F.3d 380 (11th Cir. 1996) and United States v. DeVaron, 136 F.3d 740 (11th Cir. 1998). See United States v. DeVaron, 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.

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.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

U.S. v. CAMPBELL
(Jul 22, 1999)