Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30565/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30565-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Alexander
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 12, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30565

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH ALEXANDER,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CR-315-L

--------------------

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Alexander appeals his concurrent 120-month sentences

following his plea of guilty to two counts of being a felon in

possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)

and 924(a)(2). Alexander contends that the district court erred

in departing upward from a guideline sentencing range of 41 to 51

months. Because Alexander’s sentences should be affirmed under

any standard of review, his motion to stay this appeal is denied.

 Case: 03-30565 Document: 0051435713 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2004
No. 03-30565

-2-

Alexander argues that the fact that he was convicted of two

offenses did not support the district court’s upward departure. 

The record supports the district court’s findings that

Alexander’s offenses were atypically serious and were not

adequately taken into account by the sentencing guidelines. 

Alexander does not contest the district court’s finding that

threatening letters he had written also reflected that his

criminal history category significantly under-represented the

seriousness of his criminal history.

Arguably, the district court did impermissibly base the

departure, in part, on Alexander’s prior firearm-related arrests

that did not result in conviction. See United States v. CantuDominguez, 898 F.2d 968, 970-71 (5th Cir. 1990). However, the

district court’s remaining reasons were valid and sufficient to

support its upward departure. See Williams v. United States,

503 U.S. 193, 203-04 (1992). Moreover, the extent of the

departure was reasonable. See United States v. Daughenbaugh,

49 F.3d 171, 174-75 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Ashburn,

38 F.3d 807, 809 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

MOTION TO STAY APPEAL DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-30565 Document: 0051435713 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2004