Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rachel Mae SKIDMORE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-19
Citations: 471 F. App'x 356
Docket Number: No. 11-10995
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rachel Mae SKIDMORE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rachel Mae SKIDMORE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10995
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 19, 2012.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern Dis trict of Texas Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Rachel Mae Skidmore, raises arguments that she concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.2006), which held that a district court has the discretion to order under 18 U.S.C. § 3584 a federal sentence to run consecutively to a yet-to-be-imposed state sentence. See Setser v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 1468-73, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012). The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.