Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50757/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50757-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louis Zeno Lawrence
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 12, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50757

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LOUIS ZENO LAWRENCE, also known as

Lewis Zeno Lawrence,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-97-CR-004-3-SS

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louis Zeno Lawrence, federal prisoner # 45605-080, appeals

his resentencing for his convictions for possession of marijuana

with intent to distribute and for conspiracy to commit money

laundering. Lawrence was originally sentenced to concurrent

terms of 292 and 240 months, respectively. In conjunction with a

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed by Lawrence, the district court

altered Lawrence’s sentence in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), and sentenced Lawrence to consecutive terms

 Case: 03-50757 Document: 0051525392 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2004
No. 03-50757

-2-

of 240 months for the money laundering offense and 52 months for

the drug offense. On appeal, this court concluded that Apprendi

was not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review,

vacated Lawrence’s sentence, and ordered that Lawrence be

resentenced to his original sentence.

Lawrence, who is proceeding pro se on appeal, raises

numerous challenges to his indictment, his guilty plea, and his

sentence. “The only issues on remand properly before the

district court are those issues arising out of the correction of

the sentence ordered by this court.” United States v. Marmolejo,

139 F.3d 528, 531 (5th Cir. 1998). Because Lawrence could have

raised these issues in his direct appeal in 1997, he may not

present them now. See id.

Lawrence also contends that the district court wrongly

resentenced him in absentia. The mandate of this court

specifically required the district court to reimpose Lawrence’s

original sentence, at which time he was present and had an

opportunity for allocution. Therefore, the sentence received by

Lawrence was not a “new” sentence requiring his presence. Cf.

United States v. Patterson, 42 F.3d 246, 248 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government’s motion to seal its appellate brief is

GRANTED.

 Case: 03-50757 Document: 0051525392 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2004