United States v. Jeffries ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 17, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-11307
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAURICE JEFFRIES, also known as David Wayne Smith,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:02:CR-97-ALL-J
--------------------
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maurice Jeffries has appealed the sentence imposed following
his jury conviction of possession with intent to distribute
cocaine and cocaine base. Jeffries was sentenced to a 235-month
term of imprisonment and to a five-year period of supervised
release. Jeffries contends that his sentence should be vacated
because it was imposed pursuant to an unconstitutional mandatory
guidelines system, contrary to United States v. Booker, 125
S. Ct. 738, 768–69 (2005), a so-called Fanfan error. See United
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-11307
-2-
States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 2005). As
Jeffries concedes, our review is for plain error. See United
States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520–21 (5th Cir. 2005), petition
for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). Under the third
prong of the plain-error analysis, Jeffries must show that the
error affected his substantial rights. See Martinez-Lugo, 411
F.3d at 600. Jeffries does not contend that the error affected
the outcome of the proceedings and a review of the record does
not suggest otherwise. See United States v. Inman, 411 F.3d 591,
595 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bringier, 405 F.3d 310, 317
(5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 26, 2005) (No.
05-5535).
Jeffries contends that prejudice should be presumed or that
a showing of prejudice should not be required because the error
was structural. We have previously rejected this contention.
See Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d at 601; see also United States v.
Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 560 n.9 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for
cert. filed (July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). Jeffries has not
shown that his substantial rights were affected because the
district court sentenced him pursuant to a mandatory guideline
scheme. See Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d at 601. The judgment is
AFFIRMED.
Jeffries has filed a pro se motion for substitution of
counsel. The motion is DENIED. Because Jeffries is not entitled
to hybrid representation, the substantive issues raised by
No. 04-11307
-3-
Jeffries in his pro se filings have not been considered. See
United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447, 449 & n.1 (5th Cir.
1999); 5TH CIR. R. 28.7.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.