United States v. Hancock ( 1998 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40503
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN HANCOCK,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
UDC No. 1:96-CR-115-2
- - - - - - - - - -
February 10, 1998
Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Hancock appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea
conviction to possession of crack cocaine with intent to
distribute.
He argues that the district court erred by overruling his
objection to a two-point increase for possession of a firearm
during a drug transaction because it was his brother Noel Hancock
who possessed the gun and sold it following the drug transaction.
It was reasonably foreseeable to Hancock that his brother would
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-40503
-2-
possess a firearm during the commission of a drug-trafficking
offense, as Hancock helped the buyer locate Noel to facilitate
the buying of the gun in addition to separately selling the buyer
crack cocaine. The district court did not clearly err by
overruling the objection to the enhancement. See United States
v. Thomas, 120 F.3d 564, 574 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 1998
WL 5907 (U.S. Jan. 12, 1998) (No. 97-6829), and cert. denied,
1998 WL 5908 (U.S. Jan. 12, 1998) (No. 97-6839).
Hancock argues that the trial court erred by overruling his
objection to the addition of four points to his criminal history
score for two juvenile adjudications. He contends that the two
offenses were related and should have been counted as only one
offense, rather than two separate offenses. The two offenses
could not have been considered related because they were
separated by an intervening offense. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2,
comment. (n.3). The district court did not err by overruling the
objection. See United States v. Fitzhugh, 984 F.2d 143, 147 &
n.15 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.