USA v. Alexander

Filing 920060828

Opinion

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-30910 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LERON MICHAEL ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:03-CR-00279-1 -------------------Before JOLLY, GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Leron Michael Alexander appeals from his conviction of three counts of bank robbery, one count of carjacking, and four counts of using, carrying, violence. or brandishing a firearm during a crime of Alexander contends that the two firearm charges arising from the June 18, 2001, carjacking and bank robbery he committed should have resulted in one firearm sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) because the predicate offenses were grouped under the Sentencing Guidelines and because the carjacking and bank robbery 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 05-30910 -2occurred nearly simultaneously. He also argues that the district court erred by adjusting his guideline sentencing level as to one of his bank robberies because one of his victims was a vulnerable victim. The evidence showed that Alexander brandished a firearm when he committed his carjacking offense, then again when he robbed the bank. Therefore, Alexander used a firearm twice to commit two There different predicate offenses, carjacking and bank robbery. were thus two units of prosecution, see United States v. Phipps, 319 F.3d 177, 186 (5th Cir. 2003), and § 924(c) authorized separate convictions and sentences. See id. We need not address whether the vulnerable victim adjustment was erroneous. Without the adjustment, Alexander's combined offense level for his multiple offenses would have remained 28, see U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4(a), and his total offense level would have remained the same. Any error regarding the vulnerable victim See United States v. Sidhu, 130 F.3d adjustment is thus harmless. 644, 652 (5th Cir. 1997). AFFIRMED.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?