Case ID: f-appx_296/html/0431-02.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. Edward Eugene CADE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-10172.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 22, 2008.
    Amy Jeannine Mitchell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Edward Eugene Cade, Mansfield, TX, pro se.
    
      Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Edward Eugene Cade pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 6 kilograms or more of cocaine, 500 grams or more of cocaine base, and 1200 grams or more of marijuana (Count 1) and to possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense (Count 2). The district court found Cade to be a career offender but sentenced him below the advisory guideline range to 216 months of imprisonment on Count 1. The court sentenced Cade to the statutory minimum 60-month sentence on Count 2, to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for Count 1.

Cade argues that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on a finding that his Texas conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver was a “controlled substance offense.” Cade correctly concedes that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Ford, 509 F.3d 714, 717 (5th Cir.2007), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 44, 172 L.Ed.2d 51 (2008), and he raises it solely to preserve it for further possible review.

The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance, which is GRANTED. The Government’s motion for dismissal of the appeal and alternative motion for an extension of time for filing an appellate brief are DENIED, and 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.