USA v. Jamal Minor


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-10067 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: JLD , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 08/25/2017 for Appellant Jamal Minor [17-10067]

Download PDF
Case: 17-10067 Document: 00514103526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-10067 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 4, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JAMAL MINOR, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-80-1 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Jamal Minor was sentenced to a within-guidelines term of imprisonment following his plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, a Glock pistol, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Minor now appeals, contending that the district court erred in applying offense-level enhancements pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) and (b)(6)(B) based on his 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-10067 Document: 00514103526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2017 No. 17-10067 earlier arrest for possession of a different firearm, a Hi-Point pistol with an obliterated serial number, in connection with another felony drug offense. Minor’s challenges are without merit. First, Minor has failed to brief and therefore waived any challenge to the application of the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement based on the district court’s alternative finding that he possessed the Glock in connection with the felony of aggravated robbery. See United States v. Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327, 336 n.6 (5th Cir. 2016). We affirm the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement on that unchallenged basis. Capital Concepts Props. 85-1 v. Mut. First, Inc., 35 F.3d 170, 176 (5th Cir. 1994). Second, although Minor denies that he possessed the Hi-Point pistol at the time of his arrest in December 2015, he fails to establish how the district court clearly erred in relying on the PSR’s unrebutted factual finding to the contrary. See United States v. Fuentes, 775 F.3d 213, 220 (5th Cir. 2014). Minor likewise fails to demonstrate any clear error in the district court’s determination that his possession of both pistols in connection with criminal activity less than four months apart was part of the same series of offenses. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3; United States v. Brummett, 355 F.3d 343, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2003). Because the Hi-Point pistol with the obliterated serial number was therefore relevant conduct for the purposes of sentencing, the district court did not clearly err in applying the § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) enhancement. 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?