Case ID: f-appx_111/html/0289-01.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. John Robert WIMBERLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-10313.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Oct. 19, 2004.
    Denise B. Williams, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jerry V. Beard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

John Robert Wimberley appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being a convicted felon in possession of ammunition. Wimberley argues that the district court erred in applying the enhancement provision found in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) of the Sentencing Guidelines because there was no evidence that he possessed ammunition in connection with another felony offense. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), because there was sufficient evidence to show that Wimberley possessed ammunition in connection with the felony offense of possession of methamphetamine. See United States v. Condren, 18 F.3d 1190, 1193, 1199-1200 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Armstead, 114 F.3d 504, 512 (5th Cir.1997).

Wimberley also argues that the district court improperly sentenced him based on facts not admitted or found by a jury in violation of Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 473 (5th Cir.2004), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Jul. 14, 2004) (No. 03-30437).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.