United States v. Neal ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                            United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FIFTH CIRCUIT                         April 17, 2006
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 05-60104
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ROY MILTON NEAL,
    also known as Solo,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Mississippi
    (2:04-CR-95)
    Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Roy Milton Neal appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea
    conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, contending
    his 115-month sentence, imposed after the Supreme Court’s decision
    in United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), is unreasonable.
    Specifically, Neal claims the district court’s assessment of a
    four-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) (increase of base-
    level    offense   where   defendant   used   or   possessed   firearm     in
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    connection with another felony offense) was improper because the
    facts underlying the enhancement exceeded the scope of his guilty-
    plea admissions.
    Contrary to Neal’s claim, the district court was permitted to
    look    beyond    Neal’s   guilty-plea      admissions   for   purposes     of
    determining his post-Booker sentence.         See United States v. Mares,
    
    402 F.3d 511
    , 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 43
     (2005).
    The district court heard testimony on the § 2K2.1(b)(5) four-level
    increase and concluded the enhancement was supported by proof “far
    beyond a reasonable doubt”.      Because Neal’s sentence fell within a
    properly    calculated     guideline       range,   it   is    presumptively
    reasonable.      See United States v. Alonzo, 
    435 F.3d 551
    , 554 (5th
    Cir. 2006).
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-60104

Judges: Barksdale, Stewart, Clement

Filed Date: 4/17/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024