United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 18, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50744
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JHANTEL RUTH CROCKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:05-CR-239-2
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Jhantel Ruth Crocker pleaded guilty to possession of at
least 50 grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute,
conspiracy to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine,
and distribution of methamphetamine. On appeal, she challenges
as unreasonable the district court’s imposition of consecutive
60-month sentences for the first two counts. She does not
challenge the concurrent 108-month sentence she received for the
distribution count.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 06-50744
-2-
The district court stated that the two 60-month sentences
“must” be consecutive and indicated a desire to impose a sentence
in the middle of the advisory guidelines range of 108-135 months.
The reasoning behind the court’s sentencing decision, however, is
not clear. We are troubled by the district court’s language,
which indicates that it felt constrained to impose consecutive
60-month sentences. If the court’s aim was to sentence Crocker
to 120 months, concurrent sentences of 120 months would have
satisfied this goal. If, however, the district court felt it was
unable to sentence Crocker to fewer than 120 months for the
possession-with-intent and conspiracy counts, we cannot
understand why he should be so constrained. Crocker’s concurrent
108-month sentence for the distribution count was within the
guidelines range.
Given the lack of clarity in the record, we REMAND to the
district court for the limited purpose of explaining its
sentencing decision in light of these concerns. This court
retains jurisdiction of the appeal during the pendency of the
limited remand. See Wheeler v. City of Columbus, 686 F.2d 1144,
1154 (5th Cir. 1982).
LIMITED REMAND.