Case ID: f-appx_137/html/0691-01.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. Koma DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-30941.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 22, 2005.
    Peter Michael Thomson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, William P. Gibbens, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert F. Barnard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Robin Elise Schulberg, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Koma Davis pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(a) and 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to 46 months in prison and to three years of supervised release.

Davis argues that the district court erred by assigning him a base offense level of 20 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A), based oh his having a prior conviction of a “controlled substance offense.” He maintains that his 2000 Louisiana conviction of distribution of a substance falsely represented to be crack cocaine does not qualify as such a conviction because it involved an “imitation” substance rather than a “counterfeit substance.” Offenses involving “counterfeit substances” qualify as “controlled substance offenses” pursuant to the applicable definition in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b), but “counterfeit” is not defined by the Sentencing Guidelines. Davis concedes that his contention is foreclosed by United States v. Crittenden, 372 F.3d 706, 708, 709 (5th Cir.2004), in which we adopted a broad dictionary definition of “counterfeit” in determining the plain meaning of that term. He raises the argument to preserve it for possible further review.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.