Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0233-01.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. Keith SMITH, also known as Keith Cornell Smith, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-31003
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 24, 2007.
    William P. Gibbens, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard William Westling, Law Offices of Richard W. Westling, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Keith Smith appeals the sentence imposed on remand following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. He argues that the district court used information protected by an immunity agreement to calculate his sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines in violation of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8.

The Government argues that Smith’s appeal is barred by an appeal waiver included in Smith’s written plea agreement. In the absence of the transcripts necessary for a review of the voluntariness of Smith’s waiver, this court will not consider this issue. See Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir.1992) (party raising an issue has duty to provide the record relating to that issue); United States v. Dunham Concrete Prods., Inc., 475 F.2d 1241, 1251 (5th Cir.1973) (same).

In view of the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing on remand, Smith has not shown that the district court clearly erred in finding that the Government established that the evidence used to calculate Smith’s offense level was obtained from legitimate, independent sources-Smith’s own admissions prior to the agreement, wiretap evidence, and an interview with an individual who purchased crack cocaine from Smith. See United States v. Gibson, 48 F.3d 876, 879 (5th Cir.1995).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.