Case ID: f-appx_169/html/0857-01.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. Victoria Louise MEHIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-40754.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided March 6, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Victoria Louise Mehis appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction of possessing with the intent to distribute approximately 45.85 kilograms of cocaine. She argues that the district court erroneously calculated her criminal history category for purposes of applying the United States Sentencing Guidelines by considering a prior, uncounseled misdemeanor conviction of possessing marijuana when assessing her criminal history points. She contends that her waiver of the right to counsel in that case was invalid because the district court failed to inform her that she was entitled to be represented during her guilty plea by court appointed counsel.

The records pertaining to Mehis’s conviction of possessing marijuana indicate that Mehis knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to be represented by counsel when she entered her guilty plea. See Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 88-94, 124 S.Ct. 1379, 158 L.Ed.2d 209 (2004). Accordingly, the district court did not misapply the Sentencing Guidelines by using Mehis’s prior conviction for purposes of determining her criminal history score.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.