United States v. Reeves ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 30, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-51328
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARCUS JAMES REEVES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-02-CR-1233-1-PRM
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marcus Reeves appeals his sentence from a guilty-plea
conviction on four counts of drug-related offenses. Reeves
argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing
Guidelines by failing to consider whether he was entitled to an
additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility
under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b).
Under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), once the district court
determined that Reeves qualified for the two-level reduction
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-51328
-2-
under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), the only remaining questions were
(1) whether his offense level was greater than 16 and (2) whether
he either had timely provided complete information to the
Government concerning his own involvement in the offense or had
timely entered a guilty plea. See United States v. Leal-Mendoza,
281 F.3d 473, 476 (5th Cir. 2002). The district court erred in
failing to conduct this mandatory inquiry. See id.
Reeves did not object to the precise issue of the court’s
mandatory duty to consider the additional one-level reduction
under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). This issue is therefore reviewed for
plain error. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b); United States
v. Vasquez, 216 F.3d 456, 459 (5th Cir. 2000). The key inquiry
under plain error review is whether the district court could have
imposed the same sentence absent the error. See United States
v. Wheeler, 322 F.3d 823, 827-28 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation
omitted, emphasis in original). In this case, the sentence
imposed by the district court was within the appropriate
guidelines range, and therefore the district court could have
imposed the same sentence absent the error. See Wheeler,
322 F.3d at 828. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of
the district court are AFFIRMED.