Case ID: f-appx_396/html/0082-01.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. Claude Christopher JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 09-60956, 09-60957
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 23, 2010.
    Gaines H. Cleveland, Jay Tresca Golden, Assistants U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Gulfport, MS, Jerry Lynn Rushing, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ellen Maier Allred, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Gulfport, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appealing his sentences following the revocation of supervised release, Claude Christopher Johnson presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.2006), which held that a district court may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively with an unimposed state sentence.

To the extent that Johnson argues that the district court erred in ordering that his revocation sentences run consecutively with a federal sentence imposed in any prosecution relating to the criminal conduct in the matter, any such error was rendered harmless or moot. Johnson’s subsequently imposed 120-month sentence following his guilty plea to theft of firearms from a licensed firearm dealer was ordered to run concurrently with his revocation sentences. See United States v. Ahmed, 324 F.3d 368, 374 (5th Cir.2003); Rocky v. King, 900 F.2d 864, 867 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Quintana-Go-mez, 521 F.3d 495, 497-98 (5th Cir.2008). The Government’s motion for summary af-firmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.