IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60356
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONNIE JEROME LANG,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 94-CR-64-1
- - - - - - - - - -
December 20, 1995
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronnie Jerome Lang argues that the district court erred in
refusing to depart downward at sentencing because of his youth
and because he had not committed any prior offenses. Lang
contends that his conduct was aberrant behavior which has not
been considered by the Sentencing Commission in establishing the
sentencing guidelines.
*
Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of
opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of
well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the
public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that
Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published.
No. 95-60356
-2-
Lang's conduct did not reflect spontaneous or thoughtless
behavior. Rather, the record demonstrates that Lang and Lewis
devised a plan to steal a vehicle and a firearm, and they then
traveled across the country for several days until they found an
isolated location for a bank robbery. Their course of action was
planned and calculated. Lang's lack of prior convictions was
taken into account in the determination that he was entitled to a
criminal history category of I under the sentencing guidelines.
The district court's determination that a departure was not
warranted based on aberrant behavior or Lang's lack of prior
convictions was not error.
This appeal is frivolous. The issue raised is without
arguable merit and thus frivolous. Counsel is admonished that
all counsel are subject to sanctions. Counsel has no duty to
bring a frivolous appeal. The opposite is true. See United
States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115
S. Ct. 283 (1995). The appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
5th Cir. R. 42.2.