United States v. Briggs ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30305 Document: 00516628193 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-30305
FILED
January 30, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Damien Damon Briggs,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:21-CR-232-2
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Damien Damon Briggs pled guilty to theft of firearms from a federal
firearms licensee. The district court sentenced him within the Guidelines
range to 96 months in prison and three years of supervised release. He argues
on appeal that the district court improperly calculated the base offense level
for purposes of determining the Guideline sentencing range.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30305 Document: 00516628193 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2023
No. 22-30305
We review for plain error because Briggs failed to urge a relevant
conduct objection in the district court. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,
135 (2009). To prevail, Briggs must show a forfeited error that is clear or
obvious and affects his substantial rights. See id. If he makes such a showing,
we have the discretion to correct the error, but only if it “seriously affect[s]
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.(quotation marks and citation omitted).
Briggs argues that the base offense level selected by the court was
improper because he did not know he was a prohibited person. See U.S.S.G.
§§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)(i)(I) and (ii)(I). This subsection of 2K2.1, however, does
not contain any exceptions or requirements for certain mental states or
knowledge. See United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir. 2012);
see also United States v. Fry, 51 F.3d 543, 546 (5th Cir. 1995).
The district court did not err. AFFIRMED.
2