Case ID: f-appx_115/html/0259-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Preston Joseph ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-40747.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 17, 2004.
    Michelle S. Englade, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Frank Warren Henderson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Amy R. Blalock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Eastern District Of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Preston Joseph Robinson pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more but less than 50 grams of cocaine base. He was sentenced to 110 months of imprisonment, four years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Robinson argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred by including, pursuant to the relevant conduct provision of U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(2), an additional 15.4 grams of cocaine base in the calculation of his base offense level because the finding of the additional drug amount was made by the district court and was not made by a jury or admitted by Robinson. He contends that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the use of the court’s finding of the additional drug amount in the determination of his sentence violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. As Robinson acknowledges, this issue is foreclosed. See United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 473 (5th Cir.2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.