USA v. Poore, No. 05-51250 (5th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 6, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-51250 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BRETT ROLLAND POORE, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (1:05-CR-90-1) -------------------Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant Brett Rolland Poore pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine and possession with methamphetamine. intent to distribute more than 50 grams of Finding that Poore was a career criminal, the district court sentenced him on each count to 262 months in prison and five years of supervised release, the terms to run concurrently. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Poore appeals, arguing that his sentence, imposed after the Supreme Court s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), was unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Here, the district court fulfilled its duty to consider all of the § 3553 factors and sentenced Poore to 262 months of imprisonment, which was the lowest end of the sentencing guidelines range. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). the properly calculated presumptively reasonable. 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). advisory This sentence is within guidelines range and is United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, There is no indication that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519. district court s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2 The

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.