USA v. Kelly Burkett


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-10945 Affirmed] Judge: PEH, Judge: ECP, Judge: CH. Mandate pull date is 04/27/2017 for Appellant Kelly Wooderson Burkett [15-10945]

Download PDF
Case: 15-10945 Document: 00513942562 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-10945 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 6, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. KELLY WOODERSON BURKETT, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CR-62-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kelly Wooderson Burkett pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Burkett argues that, because she was not involved in importation, the district court erred by imposing a two-level importation enhancement. She acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2014). 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 15-10945 Document: 00513942562 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2017 No. 15-10945 She also argues that the district court erred by increasing her offense level by two levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. ยง 3C1.1, because she attempted to obstruct or impede justice. The district court stated specifically that even if it erred by applying the enhancement, it would have imposed the same sentence. Accordingly, any error in applying the enhancement is harmless. See United States v. Gutierrez-Mendez, 752 F.3d 418, 429-30 (5th Cir. 2014); see also United States v. Shepherd, ___ F.3d ___, 2017 WL 543219, *2 (5th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017). AFFIRMED. 2

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?