CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT L. POOLE, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.


No. 07-3694

Filed: August 21, 2008
Before: DAUGHTREY and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.

_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

Robert L. Poole, Jr., appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana (Count 1), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute (Count 12), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He also appeals his concurrent 151-month prison sentences and five-year supervised-release terms. The parties have waived oral argument, and this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

. . .

For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the convictions and sentences. However, we remand for consideration of whether Poole is entitled to a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SHAWN MAYBERRY (06-2239); JAMES PEOPLES (06-2413),
Defendants-Appellants.


Nos. 06-2239/2413

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 06-00031—Robert Holmes Bell, Chief District Judge.
Argued: July 22, 2008
Decided and Filed: August 21, 2008
Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; MOORE and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant James Peoples appeals his conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), alleging that he was deprived of his Fifth Amendment rights when the prosecution introduced evidence demonstrating that he possessed firearms during multiple armed robberies, that insufficient evidence exists to support his conviction, and that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness. Defendant Shawn Mayberry appeals his 110-month sentence on similar charges, claiming that the district judge unconstitutionally made findings of fact at sentencing, and that his sentence is unreasonable. As none of these claims have merit, we AFFIRM both Defendants’ convictions and sentences.