United States v. Brunson ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 29, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10654
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SCOTT LEE BRUNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CR-254-1-A
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Scott Lee Brunson pleaded guilty to one charge of possession
of a machine gun and was sentenced to serve 71 months in prison
and a three-year term of supervised release. Brunson now appeals
his conviction and sentence. Brunson argues that the statute of
conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), is unconstitutional. This
argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v.
Knutson, 113 F.3d 27, 28 (5th Cir. 1997).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-10654
-2-
Brunson contends that the district court erred when it found
that his offense involved three or more firearms and adjusted his
base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1). Brunson
further contends that the district court erred in determining
that he was a leader or organizer of the offense and adjusting
his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). Brunson
has not shown that the disputed adjustments involve either a
misinterpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines or a clearly
erroneous finding of fact. See United States v. Villegas,
__ F.3d __, No. 03-21220, 2005 WL 62793 at *2-*5 (5th Cir.
Mar. 17, 2005); United States v. Lowder, 148 F.3d 548, 552
(5th Cir. 1998).
Finally, Brunson argues that his sentence is invalid under
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Brunson has not
shown that he is entitled to relief on this claim, as he has not
established that “the sentencing judge--sentencing under an
advisory scheme rather then a mandatory one--would have reached
a significantly different result.” See United States v. Mares,
___ F.3d ___, No. 03-21035, 2005 WL 503715 at *9 (5th Cir Mar. 4,
2005).
Brunson has not shown error in the judgment of the district
court. Accordingly, that judgment is AFFIRMED.