Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40945/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40945-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roosevelt Terence Jerome Rayford
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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

January 14, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40945

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

ROOSEVELT TERENCE JEROME RAYFORD, also known as TJ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CR-88-6

( )

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roosevelt Terrence Jerome Rayford appeals his sentence

following his guilty plea to Count I of the indictment charging him

with conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent

to manufacture, distribute, or dispense cocaine base and marijuana,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Rayford argues that his case

 Case: 03-40945 Document: 0051467831 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2004
2

should be remanded to the district court for re-sentencing within

the Guideline range of 262 to 327 months of imprisonment because

the district court erroneously assigned Rayford a base offense

level of 35 under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the career offender guideline.

Rayford’s failure to object to his offense level determination

limits this Court’s review of his sentence to plain error. See

United States v. Hawkins, 87 F.3d 722, 730 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Our review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing in this

case persuades us that the district court’s erroneous use of

offense level 35 was the result of two express misrepresentations

made by the prosecutor and the probation officer who were present

at the sentencing hearing; i.e. (1) that the district court’s

refusal to find that Rayford was guilty of an obstruction of

justice had no significant impact on his sentence; and (2) that the

applicable offense level for a career offender was 38 for the kind

of conviction to which Rayford plead guilty. 

In its brief, the Government makes no attempt to sustain the

validity of the sentencing of 326 months entered by the district

court in this case, stating:

Although Rayford’s sentence of 326 months is still within

the Guideline range of an imprisonment, there is nothing

in the record to support the conclusion that the district

court would have sentenced Rayford to the same sentence

absent the one point error in the offense level.

In its conclusion, the Government requests that “Rayford’s sentence

should be remanded to the district court for re-sentencing within

the Guideline range of 262-327 months.”

 Case: 03-40945 Document: 0051467831 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/14/2004
G:\opin-sc\03-40945.opn.wpd 3

Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding

that there was error in this case, such error was clear, and such

error affected Rayford’s substantial rights. See, United States v.

Calverley, 37 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994). Likewise, we conclude that

such error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public

reputation of judicial proceedings.” See, United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725 (1993). Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to

vacate Rayford’s sentence and remand this case to the district

court for re-sentencing within the Guideline range for Level 34. 

 Case: 03-40945 Document: 0051467831 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/14/2004