Case ID: f-appx_201/html/0273-01.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. Billy Max COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-40163
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 3, 2006.
    Joshua Thomas Burgess, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donald Lee Bailey, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Billy Max Collins appeals his 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Collins argues that the district court erred by denying him a reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2), which provides that provides that a defendant’s base offense level should be decreased to six “[i]f the defendant ... possessed all ammunition and firearms solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection, and did not unlawfully discharge or otherwise unlawfully use such firearms or ammunition.” § 2K2.1(b)(2). He contends that the Government presented no evidence which contradicted his testimony as to his use of the firearm and the district court’s findings were insufficient to support its decision denying him the reduction.

Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), this court reviews the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 268, 163 L.Ed.2d 241 (2005). The district court agreed with the Government’s conclusion that Collins’s testimony that he used the firearm for sporting purposes was not credible. The district court’s credibility determination was supported by ample record evidence and thus was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Ocana, 204 F.3d 585, 593 (5th Cir.2000). Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying Collins a § 2K2.1(b)(2) reduction. Collins’s sentence is affirmed.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.