Case ID: f-appx_251/html/0939-02.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. Joey Kenneth PRIDDY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-51447
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 25, 2007.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Joey Kenneth Priddy appeals the 46-xnonth sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for theft of U.S. property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641; transportation of ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and transportation of stolen property through interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Priddy argues that the four-level enhancement that he received pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) was error because his possession of ammunition was not “in connection with” his other felony offenses as the ammunition was the object of and occurred contemporaneously with the other two offenses to which he pleaded guilty. The Government moves for summary affirmance on the ground that the argument is foreclosed by United States v. Armstead, 114 F.3d 504, 511 (5th Cir.1997). Priddy concedes that his ax-gument is foreclosed by Armstead but seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review.

The § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement was appropriate in the instant case. See Armstead, 114 F.3d at 511-13. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has detei'mined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.