United States v. Frazier , 220 F. App'x 294 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 February 28, 2007
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 05-20722
    c/w No. 05-20741
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JOHN BUFORD FRAZIER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:04-CR-354-2
    --------------------
    Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    John Buford Frazier was convicted for possessing a firearm
    as a convicted felon under 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1) and § 924(a)(2).
    In the first of two consolidated appeals, No. 05-20722, he
    challenges the district court’s revocation of his pre-trial bond.
    We lack jurisdiction to consider his claims because the issues
    raised are moot.   See Fassler v. United States, 
    858 F.2d 1016
    ,
    1017-18 (5th Cir. 1988).    The appeal is therefore DISMISSED.
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    Nos. 05-20722
    c/w No. 05-20741
    -2-
    In the second of Frazier’s appeals, he challenges his
    conviction and the 71-month sentence he received.    First he
    asserts that the district court erred in including his 1983 Texas
    conviction for burglary in determining his criminal history
    score.    Frazier was paroled on the 1983 conviction in 1987.   The
    following year, he was convicted of aggravated robbery and
    imprisoned in Colorado.    In 1989, his parole on the 1983
    conviction was revoked, and his sentence was not discharged until
    1991.    Frazier asserts that, because he was already in prison in
    Colorado at the time his parole on the 1983 conviction was
    revoked, the Colorado imprisonment did not “result from” the 1983
    conviction for purposes of counting it toward his criminal
    history under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(1).    We rejected such an
    argument in United States v. Ybarra, 
    70 F.3d 362
    , 366-67 (5th
    Cir. 1995).
    Next Frazier asserts that the district court erred in
    denying his motion to dismiss the indictment.    The Sixth
    Amendment requires that an indictment (1) enumerate each prima
    facie element of the charged offense; (2) fairly inform the
    defendant of the charges filed against him; and (3) provide the
    defendant with a double jeopardy defense against future
    prosecutions.     United States v. Gaytan, 
    74 F.3d 545
    , 551 (5th
    Cir. 1996).     The elements of the offense under § 922(g)(1) are
    that the defendant have a prior conviction “in any court of[] a
    Nos. 05-20722
    c/w No. 05-20741
    -3-
    crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”
    § 922(g)(1).
    The indictment does not specify the predicate offense for
    the charge against Frazier, although it does state that it was a
    crime of violence.    Frazier asserts that his 1988 Colorado
    conviction cannot serve as the predicate offense.    Assuming
    arguendo that he is correct, he has another prior conviction for
    a crime of violence, his 1983 conviction for burglary of a
    habitation in Texas.    Accordingly, the district court did not err
    in denying Frazier’s motion.
    Finally, Frazier asserts that the disparity between his 71-
    month sentence and the 21-month sentence his co-defendant
    received for the same conduct violates his rights under the Due
    Process Clause.    We review the district court’s sentencing
    decision for unreasonableness, with our inquiry guided by the
    considerations set forth in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).    United States
    v. Smith, 
    440 F.3d 704
    , 706 (5th Cir. 2006).    Subsection (a)(6)
    requires the sentencing court to consider the disparity in
    sentences among defendants who have been found guilty of similar
    conduct only where the defendants have “similar records.”
    § 3553(a)(6).    Thus, § 3553(a)(6) concerns “the need to avoid
    disparity among similarly situated defendants nationwide rather
    than disparity with [a defendant’s] differently-situated
    co-defendant.”    United States v. Duhon, 
    440 F.3d 711
    , 721 (5th
    Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed (May 18, 2006) (05-11144).
    Nos. 05-20722
    c/w No. 05-20741
    -4-
    Even before § 3553 came into effect with the Sentencing Reform
    Act of 1984, see Mistretta v. United States, 
    488 U.S. 361
    , 367-68
    (1989), we had held that a disparity between co-defendants’
    sentences does not violate the Due Process Clause where the
    greater sentence is based upon, inter alia, the defendant’s
    character and background.   United State v. Lucio, 
    394 F.2d 511
    ,
    511-12 (5th Cir. 1968).
    Frazier’s sentence was the result of his extensive criminal
    record, and his counsel admitted during the sentencing hearing
    that Frazier was different from his co-defendant and that “you
    just can’t treat everybody equally.”   The disparity between the
    co-defendants’ sentences here is not unreasonable, and it does
    not violate the protections of the Due Process Clause.
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-20722, 05-20741

Citation Numbers: 220 F. App'x 294

Judges: Demoss, Stewart, Prado

Filed Date: 3/2/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024