Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10644/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10644-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brandon Danielle Collier
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10644

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRANDON DANIELLE COLLIER, also known as Brandon Daniel Collier,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-301

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brandon Danielle Collier appeals the 77-month sentence imposed on his 

guilty plea conviction for possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. See 18 

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). We affirm.

Reviewing for plain error, we reject the contention that the base offense 

level was assigned erroneously because the district court ignored Descamps v. 

United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), and impermissibly considered state court 

* 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

May 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10644 Document: 00513045909 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2015
No. 14-10644

documents to find that Collier had a prior Texas conviction for a controlled 

substance offense. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). 

Collier’s arguments, if not foreclosed, are at least subject to reasonable dispute. 

See United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 459 (5th Cir. 2014), petition for 

cert. filed (Dec. 15, 2014) (No. 14-7593). A claim subject to reasonable dispute 

cannot succeed on plain error review. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States 

v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 377-78 (5th Cir. 2009).

Reviewing for plain error, we reject also the contention that the district 

court reversibly erred by not reducing Collier’s federal sentence to account for 

time spent in state pretrial custody before the state sentence is imposed. See 

Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. The Sentencing Guidelines do not authorize a district 

court to grant such a reduction. United States v. Looney, No. 14-10203, 2015 

WL 1534358 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2015) (unpublished); see United States v. Ballard, 

444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006). In light of Looney, whether the district 

court committed clear and obvious error is at least subject to reasonable 

dispute, and thus Collier has not shown plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 

135; Ellis, 564 F.3d at 377-78.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-10644 Document: 00513045909 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2015