USA v. Shaun Glaze
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-50045 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: EHJ , Judge: JES Mandate pull date is 11/06/2017 for Appellant Shaun Alan Glaze [17-50045]
Date Filed: 10/16/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
October 16, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
SHAUN ALAN GLAZE,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:16-CR-181-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Shaun Alan Glaze appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Glaze argues
that the district court erred by imposing an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because the Government failed to proffer sufficient evidence
to establish that he was engaged in drug trafficking.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 10/16/2017
As Glaze’s objection below, which was based upon the firearm’s lack of
proximity to the drugs and drug paraphernalia at issue, failed to alert the
district court sufficiently to his current argument, plain error review applies.
See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009).
A district court’s determination that a firearm was possessed in connection
with another offense for purposes of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) is a factual finding. See
United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010). “Questions of fact
capable of resolution by the district court upon proper objection at sentencing
can never constitute plain error.” United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th
Cir. 1991); accord United States v. Delacruz, 801 F.3d 508, 512 (5th Cir. 2015).
Thus, Glaze necessarily fails to show plain error. See Mondragon-Santiago,
564 F.3d at 361.
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?