United States v. Deshotel

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 8, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40473
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MANUEL WADE DESHOTEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:05-CR-106-ALL
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Manuel Wade Deshotel has appealed a 54-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon. Deshotel argues that his sentence is
unreasonable and that the district court plainly erred by failing
to provide notice that it was considering a sentence above the
advisory guideline range.
The district court’s findings of fact at sentencing are
reviewed for clear error and its application of the Sentencing
Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-40473
-2-
704, 706 (5th Cir. 2006). We review the sentence for
unreasonableness, taking into account the factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Id. Deshotel argues that his sentence is
unreasonable because his offense conduct was accounted for under
the advisory Guidelines and that his sentence is a greater
punishment than is necessary to satisfy § 3553(a).
Deshotel does not contest the calculation of the advisory
guidelines range or the factual findings on which his sentence is
based. As the district court articulated specific facts to
support its deviation from the advisory guidelines range, we
accord the sentence selected by the district court “great
deference.” See Smith, 440 F.3d at 710. The district court
properly addressed the § 3553(a) factors, and the sentence is not
unreasonable. United States v. Reinhart, 442 F.3d 857, 864 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 131 (2006).
Deshotel’s challenge to the alleged lack of notice that his
sentence might deviate from the Guidelines is subject to plain
error review because Deshotel did not object in the district
court. United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 443 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2958 (2006). Even if we assume
arguendo, that the district court erred by failing to provide
adequate notice, Deshotel has offered no argument or evidence to
suggest that additional notice would have enabled him to persuade
the district court to impose a lower sentence. Accordingly, he
No. 06-40473
-3-
has not shown that any error affected his substantial rights.
See Jones, 444 F.3d at 443.
AFFIRMED.