Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

943 F.2d 43

Docket No. 90-8868

United States v. Webb

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Sept. 30, 1991.

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1991-09-30

<p>Non-Argument Calendar.</p>

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1996

6 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3742

Relies on Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis v. Carver · United States v. Jones

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1991-09-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Non-Argument Calendar.

¶2*44John R. Francisco, Macon, Ga., for defendant-appellant.

¶3G.F. Peterman, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Macon, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶4Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, HATCHETT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6Deron Darrell Webb appeals the sentences he received for armed bank robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. See generally, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (1988). Webb’s claim of error is that the district court, in sentencing him to a term of imprisonment within the guideline range, failed to state why it did not sentence him “at the lower end of the guideline range,” the recommendation contained in Webb’s plea agreement with the Government.

¶7After imposing sentence, the district court, following our instructions in United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097, 1102-03 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 275, 112 L.Ed.2d 230 (1990), asked the parties: “are there any objections to the sentence[s] imposed or to the findings or conclusions of the Court that support the sentence[s]?” Webb’s attorney stated that there were none.

¶8By failing to object, Webb waived the objection he now makes. Finding no “plain error” in his sentencing proceeding, or in the sentence he received, we affirm the district court.

¶9AFFIRMED.

/943/f2d/43 · .json · Public domain