Case ID: f-appx_608/html/0244-01.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. Antonio MALDONADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-40562
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 18, 2015.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Antonio Maldonado appeals the 180-month sentence for his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He contends that the district court failed to recognize its authority to depart pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3584 and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c), p.s. (2013) below the mandatory minimum sentence in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) to credit him for the time he spent in state custody prior to his federal sentencing.

Contrary to his argument, Maldonado did not preserve this claim. See United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir.2009). Thus, plain error review applies. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

We may only review the district court’s decision that it lacked authority to depart. United States v. James, 468 F.3d 245, 246-47 (5th Cir.2006) (per curiam); United States v. Sam, 467 F.3d 857, 861 (5th Cir.2006). None of the authorities relied on by Maldonado clearly authorize a departure below the mandatory minimum sentence. Thus, even if the district court erred, the error was not plain. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.