Case ID: f-appx_253/html/0345-01.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. Shannon Dwayne NELSON, also known as Dawayne Anderson, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-30011
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 2, 2007.
    Joseph Thomas Mickel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, LaFayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Leslie Berman, Lake Charles, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Shannon Dwayne Nelson appeals his guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924. He argues that the district court erred in accepting his guilty plea because the factual basis was not sufficient to establish that he knowingly possessed the firearm.

Our review of the record is for plain error only. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Although Nelson denied knowledge of possession of the firearm subsequent to his arrest and prior to his mistrial, he knowingly and voluntarily admitted guilt of the elements of the crime, including knowing possession of the firearm at the rearraignment hearing. Our review of the record, including the indictment, the factual stipulation, the re-arraignment transcript, and the presentence report, demonstrates that Nelson’s guilty plea was supported by a sufficient factual basis, and the district court’s acceptance of his plea was not plainly erroneous. See United States v. Reasor, 418 F.3d 466, 470 (5th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 425 n. 13 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Ammirato, 670 F.2d 552, 555 (5th Cir.1982).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.