USA v. Lewis
Filing
920070731
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 31, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
No. 06-30273 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONNIE JERMAINE LEWIS, also known as D-Lew, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (2:04-CR-20145-5)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Having pleaded guilty, Donnie Jermaine Lewis appeals his conviction and 235-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. For the first time on appeal, Lewis challenges the sufficiency of his plea agreement's stipulated factual basis, maintaining: failed to establish the essential elements of the crime it of
conspiracy; and it was undermined by his subsequent statements. Lewis failed to raise this challenge during his guilty-plea
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*
colloquy and did not attempt to withdraw his plea. our review is for plain error only.
Accordingly,
See United States v. Vonn, 535
U.S. 55, 59 (2002); United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529, 530 (5th Cir. 2000). Under such review, Lewis must show a clear or
obvious error that affected his substantial rights. E.g., AngelesMascote, 206 F.3d at 530. correct the error; Even then, we retain discretion to we will not do so unless it
ordinarily,
seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
In his stipulation, Lewis admitted that, over the course of approximately six years, he conspired with his co-defendant and others to distribute a controlled substance. Lewis did not
subsequently dispute this admission. establish plain error.
Therefore, he fails to
See United States v. Morgan, 117 F.3d 849,
853 (5th Cir. 1997) ("To establish a drug conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must prove ... (1) an agreement existed to violate narcotics laws, (2) the defendant knew of [it], and (3) the defendant voluntarily participated in it."). As Lewis properly concedes, his challenge to our court's presumption of reasonableness afforded a sentence imposed within a properly-calculated guidelines range is foreclosed. Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006).
2
Lewis also properly concedes his challenge based on the guidelines sentencing disparity between cocaine and crack offense levels is foreclosed by United States v. Leatch, 482 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2007). review. AFFIRMED He raises it only to preserve its possible further
3
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?