United States v. Collins ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 3, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40163
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BILLY MAX COLLINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:05-CR-55-ALL
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Billy Max Collins appeals his 24-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in
possession of a firearm. Collins argues that the district court
erred by denying him a reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(b)(2), which provides that provides that a defendant’s
base offense level should be decreased to six “[i]f the
defendant . . . possessed all ammunition and firearms solely for
lawful sporting purposes or collection, and did not unlawfully
discharge or otherwise unlawfully use such firearms or
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-40163
-2-
ammunition.” § 2K2.1(b)(2). He contends that the Government
presented no evidence which contradicted his testimony as to his
use of the firearm and the district court’s findings were
insufficient to support its decision denying him the reduction.
Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), this
court reviews the district court’s application of the Sentencing
Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error.
United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005);
United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 268 (2005). The district court agreed
with the Government’s conclusion that Collins’s testimony that he
used the firearm for sporting purposes was not credible. The
district court’s credibility determination was supported by ample
record evidence and thus was not clearly erroneous. See United
States v. Ocana, 204 F.3d 585, 593 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly,
the district court did not err by denying Collins a § 2K2.1(b)(2)
reduction. Collins’s sentence is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.