United States v. Chairez ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                           United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                   April 28, 2004
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-10879
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    MANUEL CHAIREZ,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:03-CR-6-ALL-A
    --------------------
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Manuel Chairez appeals his guilty plea conviction and
    sentence for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.
    On appeal, Chairez argues that his verbal motion to withdraw his
    guilty plea should have been granted because his plea was not
    voluntary.     The district court’s decision was not an abuse of
    discretion as Chairez has failed to show a fair and just reason
    for requesting the withdrawal of his guilty plea.        See United
    States v. Carr, 
    740 F.2d 339
    , 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984).
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-10879
    -2-
    Chairez also argues that the district court erred in
    applying the enhancement provision found in § 2K2.1(b)(5) of the
    Sentencing Guidelines, because there was no evidence that Chairez
    possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense.
    After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law of
    this Circuit, we hold that the district court did not clearly err
    in applying the enhancement of § 2K2.1(b)(5), because there was
    sufficient evidence to prove that Chairez possessed a firearm in
    connection with a felony offense within the meaning of
    § 2K2.1(b)(5).   United States v. Munoz, 
    150 F.3d 401
    , 416 (5th
    Cir. 1998); United States v. Condren, 
    18 F.3d 1190
    , 1193, 1199-
    1200 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Armstead, 
    114 F.3d 504
    ,
    512 (5th Cir. 1997).
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-10879

Judges: Reavley, Jolly, Dennis

Filed Date: 4/28/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024