United States v. Currence , 181 F. App'x 462 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 23, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40984
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JABAR EUGENE CURRENCE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CR-79-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jabar Eugene Currence appeals the sentence imposed following
his plea of guilty to one count of assaulting a correctional
officer. Finding no error, we affirm.
Currence first complains that the district court erred in
denying him an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. We
review the district court’s determination under a highly-
deferential standard. See United States v. Cano-Guel, 167 F.3d
900, 906 (5th Cir. 1999). Given Currence’s improper,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40984
-2-
disrespectful and unlawful behavior during the presentence
interview with the probation officer, the district court
committed no error in denying the adjustment.
Currence also argues that the district court violated his
Sixth Amendment rights in light of United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), by applying an adjustment for physical contact
under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4(b)(1), and for his status as a career
offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. As Currence was sentenced after
the decision in Booker was rendered, the district court was free
to make all findings relevant to sentencing by a preponderance of
the evidence. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Currence concedes
that Mares is controlling, but he argues that it was incorrectly
decided. We disagree and, in any event, we are bound by our
precedent. See United States v. Stone, 306 F.3d 241, 243 (5th
Cir. 2002).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.