Case ID: f-appx_209/html/0439-01.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. Marshall Wayne CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-40331
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 12, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Larry Chris lies, Rockport, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Marshall Wayne Crawford pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of five grams or more of cocaine base with the intent to distribute and was sentenced to serve 150 months in prison. Crawford appeals his sentence.

Crawford first argues that his Due Process and Ex Post Facto rights were violated by the application of an advisory guidelines scheme to his case pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). As he concedes, this argument, which is reviewed for plain error only, is foreclosed. See United States v. Austin, 432 F.3d 598, 599-600 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 267, 163 L.Ed.2d 240 (2005).

Crawford also contends that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the use of his prior convictions to calculate his sentence. Like Crawford’s first argument, this claim is reviewed for plain error only and, as he concedes, it is foreclosed. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). The judgment of the district court is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.