United States v. Williams ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 22, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51080
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY TODD WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:04-CR-243-1
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeffrey Todd Williams appeals the denial of his motion to
suppress and subsequent jury-trial convictions and sentences for
aiding and abetting the attempt to manufacture five grams or more
of methamphetamine and two counts of aiding and abetting the
possession of chemicals with cause to believe they would be used to
manufacture methamphetamine. Williams argues that there was no
reasonable suspicion to support the traffic stop of his vehicle,
but he provides no explanation or analysis of why the district
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-51080
-2-
court erred by rejecting this contention. As Williams has not
attempted to challenge the district court’s analysis of this issue,
he has waived the issue. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (appellant’s
failure to identify any error in the district court’s analysis is
the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment). As
Williams does not challenge any other aspect of the district
court’s denial of his motion to suppress, he has waived any such
challenge. See United States v. Fagan, 821 F.2d 1002, 1015 (5th
Cir. 1987) (This court “do[es] not search the record for unassigned
error, and contentions not raised on appeal are deemed waived.”).
Williams argues that the evidence was insufficient to support
his convictions. From the testimony of his co-defendant Ron
Marriott and the police officers who searched the residence
Williams owned, the jury could reasonably conclude that the
underlying offenses occurred, that Williams associated with the
methamphetamine manufacturing operation, that Williams participated
in the operation, and that Williams sought to make the operation
succeed. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to support
Williams’s convictions. See United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593,
596-97 (5th Cir. 2001) (defendant allowing others to use his
property to store marijuana sufficient to support aiding and
abetting conviction).
Williams recounts the objections he made to expert testimony
introduced by the Government at sentencing, but he does not offer
No. 05-51080
-3-
any explanation or analysis of why he believes the district court’s
rulings on this issue were erroneous. Accordingly, to the extent
that he is challenging the district court’s admission of the expert
testimony, his challenge is waived. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at
748.
Williams argues that the sentence imposed violates his due
process rights as set forth in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005). At sentencing, the district court, in light of Booker,
calculated Williams’s guidelines sentence range, acknowledged that
the Guidelines were advisory, and exercised its discretion to
sentence Williams within the guidelines range. This was the proper
procedure, and the district court did not violate Williams’s due
process rights by sentencing him in this manner. See United States
v. Johnson, F.3d , No. 05-60695, 2006 WL 870499, *3-*4 (5th
Cir. Apr. 4, 2006).
AFFIRMED.