USA v. Lafayette Sheppard, No. 13-10592 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-10592 Document: 00512435002 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-10592 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 8, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LAFAYETTE SHEPPARD, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:10-CR-6-1 Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Lafayette Sheppard, federal prisoner # 41284-177, appeals the denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. Sheppard pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and to aiding and abetting. He was sentenced to 327 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Sheppard contends that he is eligible for a 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 13-10592 Document: 00512435002 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2013 13-10592 sentence reduction under Amendment 750, which implemented the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) and revised the Guidelines applicable to offenses involving cocaine base. Sheppard cites the Supreme Court s decision in Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012), in support of his argument. As Sheppard s motion to reconsider was filed more than 14 days following the district court s ruling on his § 3582(c)(2) motion, that court lacked jurisdiction to hear that motion. See United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 58 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Cook, 670 F.2d 46, 48 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the judgment denying reconsideration is AFFIRMED. 2

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.