United States v. Claude Johnson , 396 F. App'x 82 ( 2010 )

Case: 09-60956 Document: 00511242430 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 23, 2010
No. 09-60956
c/w No. 09-60957 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CLAUDE CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:03-CR-29-1
USDC No. 2:98-CR-18-1
Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appealing his sentences following the revocation of supervised release,
Claude Christopher Johnson presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed
by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir. 1991), abrogated on
other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006),
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 09-60956 Document: 00511242430 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2010
No. 09-60956
c/w No. 09-60957
which held that a district court may order a term of imprisonment to run
consecutively with an unimposed state sentence.
To the extent that Johnson argues that the district court erred in ordering
that his revocation sentences run consecutively with a federal sentence imposed
in any prosecution relating to the criminal conduct in the matter, any such error
was rendered harmless or moot. Johnson’s subsequently imposed 120-month
sentence following his guilty plea to theft of firearms from a licensed firearm
dealer was ordered to run concurrently with his revocation sentences. See
United States v. Ahmed, 324 F.3d 368, 374 (5th Cir. 2003); Rocky v. King, 900
F.2d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Quintana-Gomez, 521 F.3d 495,
497-98 (5th Cir. 2008). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The
Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.
2