Case ID: f-appx_228/html/0493-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jhantel Ruth CROCKER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-50744
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 18, 2007.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Samuel L. Martinez, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    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.

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 Crock-er 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.