USA v. Brian Davi
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-30263 Affirmed] Judge: WED , Judge: EBC , Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 12/17/2014 for Appellant Brian Davis; denying motion to proceed pro se filed by Appellant Mr. Brian Davis [7729889-2]; denying motion to relieve attorney filed by Appellant Mr. Brian Davis [7718692-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Brian Davis [7718692-3] [14-30263]
Date Filed: 11/26/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
November 26, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:13-CR-38-3
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Brian Davis pleaded guilty of conspiring to possess cocaine base and
possession of cocaine base (two counts), and he was sentenced within the
sentencing guidelines range to concurrent 120-month terms of imprisonment
and to concurrent four-year periods of supervised release.
Davis has moved for dismissal of his appointed counsel and for leave to
proceed pro se in this appeal. Although Davis has expressed an unequivocal
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 11/26/2014
desire to proceed pro se, his request was untimely because it was made after
counsel filed his merits brief and after the Government filed its brief. See
United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). The motion is
Through counsel, Davis contends that the district court erred at
sentencing in finding him responsible for all of the cocaine purchased and sold
by his coconspirator/supplier and in failing to make adequate findings with
respect to that issue in overruling his drug-quantity objection.
The record reflects that Davis trafficked in large quantities of cocaine
and methamphetamine and was present on at least one occasion when drugs
were distributed by his supplier to another member of the conspiracy. For
those reasons, any error on the part of the district court in failing to consider
adequately whether quantities of drugs distributed by other members of the
conspiracy were reasonably foreseeable to Davis and in failing to make
adequate findings on that issue was harmless. See United States v. PuigInfante, 19 F.3d 929, 942 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Sparks, 2 F.3d 574,
588-89 (5th Cir. 1993). The judgment is 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?