USA v. Quentrell Fountain

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-30796 Affirmed ] Judge: RHB , Judge: JEG , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 05/04/2017 for Appellant Quentrell D. Fountain [16-30796]

Download PDF
Case: 16-30796 Document: 00513951089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-30796 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit FILED April 13, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. QUENTRELL D. FOUNTAIN, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:14-CR-151-1 Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Quentrell D. Fountain pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). He was sentenced to, inter alia, 156 months’ imprisonment, a 36-month upward departure from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. He contends the district court erred by using his prior arrest record to impose the upward departure because: the prior arrests Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 16-30796 Document: 00513951089 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 No. 16-30796 were not sufficiently connected to the offense conduct to justify an upward departure under Guideline § 5K2.21; and Guideline § 4A1.3(a)(3) prohibits consideration of his arrest record without corroborating evidence. Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 48–51 (2007). The usual standard of review for such claimed error does not apply in this instance, however, because, as Fountain concedes, the claimed error was not preserved in district court. Therefore, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Fountain must show a forfeited plain (clear or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. The court mentioned Fountain’s prior arrests at sentencing, but also emphasized, pursuant to Guideline § 5K2.21, Fountain’s uncharged or dismissed conduct that was excluded under the terms of the plea agreement. This uncharged conduct included seven additional counts and the presence of minor children when Fountain discharged the firearm. After recounting Fountain’s criminal history and this uncharged conduct, the court imposed a 156-month sentence “[b]ased on the totality of the circumstances and the facts of this case”. Therefore, the record shows: although the court noted Fountain’s criminal history and briefly mentioned his arrest record, the court based its 36-month upward departure on factors permissible under § 5K2.21, and on facts which Fountain does not dispute, namely uncharged or dismissed conduct 2 Case: 16-30796 Document: 00513951089 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 No. 16-30796 and the serious risk of bodily harm to the victim’s minor children. Moreover, the record also contained evidence corroborating some of Fountain’s previous arrests, which may be considered notwithstanding Guideline § 4A1.3(a)(3). See United States v. Williams, 620 F.3d 483, 493 n.9 (5th Cir. 2010). The plain-error rule is intended to address those errors that are so plain “the trial judge and prosecutor were derelict in countenancing it, even absent the defendant’s timely assistance in detecting it”. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 (1982). Viewing the record as a whole, Fountain has failed to show the requisite clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. AFFIRMED. 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?