United States v. Watkins ( 2007 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 29, 2007
No. 06-11413
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MICHAEL A WATKINS
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CR-192-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael A. Watkins appeals following the district court’s resentencing of
him for his conviction of one charge of possession of cocaine and
methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Watkins argues that his sentence
is unreasonable under the facts of the case, particularly the facts concerning his
sentencing adjustment for a firearm, his criminal history, and the amount of
drugs for which he was responsible. He vehemently contends that a lower
sentence was appropriate and that his sentence is unreasonably high. Our
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 06-11413
review of the record shows no clear error in connection with the district court’s
exercise of its broad sentencing discretion. See United States v. Nikonova, 480
F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (May 21, 2007) (06-11834).
Watkins has failed to show that his sentence is unreasonable.
Watkins challenges this court’s jurisprudence affording a presumption of
reasonableness to a sentence within the pertinent guidelines range. This
challenge is unavailing. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007).
Watkins also challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.
This challenge is, as he concedes, unavailing because it was decided adversely
to him in his prior appeal. See United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 752 (5th
Cir. 1998), abrogation on other grounds recognized, United States v. Farias, 481
F.3d 289, 291-92 (5th Cir. 2007)..
Watkins has shown no error in connection with his sentence. Accordingly,
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2