Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30342/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30342-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David E. Cox
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30342

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID E. COX,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:14-CR-104

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David E. Cox appeals the concurrent 37-month sentences imposed 

following his guilty plea convictions for two counts of possession of a firearm 

by a convicted felon. Cox argues that the district court committed procedural 

error in imposing an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. Cox’s 

presentence report calculated a guidelines range using a Category IV criminal 

history score, and Cox argues that the court failed to explain why a Category 

 

* 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

December 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30342 Document: 00513302400 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2015
No. 15-30342

2

V criminal history score was inadequate when it departed to a range based on 

a Category VI criminal history score. Because Cox did not present this 

argument to the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009).

Section 4A1.3(a)(1) provides that, where “reliable information indicates 

that the defendant’s criminal history category substantially under-represents 

the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that [he] 

will commit other crimes, an upward departure may be warranted.” Though 

the district court did not explicitly state its reasons for rejecting a guidelines 

range with a Category V criminal history score, the court gave extensive 

reasons that made clear why it found the intermediate Category V score 

inadequate. Thus, Cox does not show clear or obvious error. See United States 

v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 348 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, even if the 

error was clear or obvious, Cox does not show a reasonable probability that he 

would have received a lesser sentence but for the district court’s lack of 

explanation. See United States v. Blocker, 612 F.3d 413, 416 (5th Cir. 2010).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-30342 Document: 00513302400 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2015