United States v. Collins , 188 F. App'x 266 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT July 7, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30353
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALFRED COLLINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(5:04-CR-50144-1)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alfred Collins was convicted after pleading guilty to being a
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and was sentenced, inter alia, to 72 months in
prison. In imposing this sentence, the district court departed
upwardly from a guideline range of 51 to 63 months. Collins did
not object to the departure in district court.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
The court concluded the departure was necessary to: promote
respect for the law, afford an adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct, and protect the public from further crimes. It also
considered the characteristics of the defendant and his apparent
disregard for the conditions imposed during past periods of
probation and supervised release. In sum, the court based its
determination on the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(listing the factors a sentencing court should consider when
imposing a sentence). Collins does not assert the court considered
any impermissible factors in deciding to depart upward.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review
an upward departure from a properly calculated Guidelines sentence
for reasonableness. See United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 439
(5th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, No. 05-11153 (23 May
2006). Because Collins did not object to this departure, review is
only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Ragsdale, 426 F.3d
765, 783-84 (5th Cir. 2005) (to constitute reversible plain error,
there must be clear or obvious error that affects substantial
rights), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1405 (2006). Based on the
record, the court reasonably imposed the sentence. See Jones, 444
F.3d at 439. Neither the decision to depart, nor the extent of
that departure, was unreasonable. This is especially so under
plain error review. See id. at 439-41.
AFFIRMED