Case ID: f-appx_499/html/0358-01.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. Edward David ROSA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-40798
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 3, 2012.
    John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Yolanda Evette Jarmon, Esq., Law Office Of Yolanda Jarmon, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Edward David Rosa appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues that the district court erred in increasing his base offense level by two levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(B) and assigning a base offense level of 20 pursuant to § 2Kl.l(a)(4)(B) because the pipe bomb found at his residence did not constitute a destructive device.

We have determined that a pipe bomb is a destructive device under § 5845(f). See United States v. Hunn, 344 Fed.Appx. 920, 921 (5th Cir.2009) (finding that homemade pipe bomb was a destructive device under § 5845(f)); United States v. Charles, 883 F.2d 355, 357 (5th Cir.1989) (concluding that three pipe bombs were destructive devices under § 5845(f)). Thus, the district court did not clearly err in enhancing Rosa’s sentence pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(3)(B) or in assigning a base offense level of 20 pursuant to § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B). See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008). Accordingly, 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.