United States v. Shaw ( 2023 )

Case: 21-30702 Document: 00516928993 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-30702 FILED
Summary Calendar October 12, 2023
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Keaton Lamar Shaw,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:19-CR-157-1
______________________________
Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Keaton Lamar Shaw pleaded guilty to possession with intent to
distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was
sentenced to a total of 151 months of imprisonment, followed by three years
of supervised release. On appeal, Shaw challenges the district court’s use of
his prior conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute a
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-30702 Document: 00516928993 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2023
No. 21-30702
controlled substance to qualify him for the career offender enhancement. He
argues that inchoate offenses are not included within the definition of a
“controlled substance offense” for purposes of the career offender
Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1, 4B1.2(b).
The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. Shaw
correctly concedes that his claim is foreclosed by United States v. Lightbourn,
115 F.3d 291, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1997), among other cases, although he urges us
to reconsider the issue. In United States v. Vargas, 74 F.4th 673 (5th Cir.
2023) (en banc), we did so. Vargas “reaffirm[ed] our longstanding precedent
that inchoate offenses like conspiracy are included in the definition of
‘controlled substance offense.’” Id. at 698.
Where “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the
case,” summary disposition is appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the motion for summary
affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is
DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2