IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-41282
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROCKY BERT COZZENS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas
(1:96-CR-61-1)
July 20, 1998
Before KING, GARWOOD and SMITH, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:
Rocky Bert Cozzens appeals the sentence he received after his
case was remanded for resentencing. He argues that the district
court abused its discretion in departing upward. Specifically, he
contends that the district court gave inadequate reasons for
departing upward and that the extent of the departure was
unreasonable. After reviewing the record and the briefs of the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
parties, we hold that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in departing upward. See United States v. Ashburn, 38
F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). The district court gave
acceptable reasons for departing upward. See United States v.
Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1310 (5th Cir. 1993). Likewise, the extent
of the departure was reasonable. See United States v. Chappell, 6
F.3d 1095, 1102 (5th Cir. 1993); Laury, 985 F.2d at 1310-11.
Further, on the prior appeal we held that “the district court
gave adequate reasons for departure upward.” United States v.
Cozzens, No. 96-41223 (5th Cir. Aug. 1, 1997) (unpublished). The
reasons given at resentencing were essentially the same, only even
more adequate. Moreover, on resentencing the district court
complied fully and properly with our prior opinion requiring it to
“explain how it arrived at a sentence of 50 months”——likewise
imposed on resentencing——and reflect that it had “considered
guideline ranges for higher offense levels.” Id. See United
States v. Marmolejo, 139 F.3d 528, 531 (5th Cir. 1998). In any
event, even apart from Marmolejo, it is clear that the instant
appeal is wholly lacking in any merit.
AFFIRMED
2