United States v. Sheeds ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51003
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL RAY SHEEDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CR-107-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Following a jury trial, Daniel Ray Sheeds was convicted of
one count of possession of an unregistered firearm. The district
court sentenced him to serve 27 months in prison and a three-year
term of supervised release. Sheeds argues that his conviction is
invalid due to flaws in his jury instructions. Sheeds has not
established plain error in connection with his jury instructions,
which track the language of the applicable pattern instruction
and statute. See United States v. McClatchy, 249 F.3d 348, 357
(5th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Daniels, 252 F.3d 411,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-51003
-2-
414 (5th Cir. 2001). To the extent that Sheeds challenges the
district court’s response to a query from the jury, this
challenge is unavailing because the district court’s response was
a “reasonably accurate” statement of law. See United States v.
Jones, 132 F.3d 232, 243 (5th Cir. 1998). Sheeds has shown no
error in connection with his conviction.
Sheeds likewise has shown no error in connection with his
sentence. Contrary to his arguments, the district court properly
calculated his base offense level. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(5);
26 U.S.C. § 5845(a). Sheeds has not demonstrated that he was
entitled to a reduction in his sentencing calculations for
acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Perez, 915
F.2d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1990).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.