Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-51041/USCOURTS-ca5-03-51041-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Doris Denise McElrath-Bey
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51041 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DORIS DENISE MCELRATH-BEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-03-CR-114-2

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Doris Denise McElrath-Bey appeals the sentence imposed

following her guilty-plea conviction for one count of making a

false statement during acquisition of a firearm in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and § 924(a)(2). She asserts that the

district court erred in determining that her base offense level

was 20 on account of a prior state felony conviction for

residential arson. She also asserts that the district court

erred in failing to grant her a downward departure from the

 Case: 03-51041 Document: 0051399666 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2004
No. 03-51041

-2-

United States Sentencing Guidelines sentencing range because she

purchased a firearm in order to protect herself from threatened

harm.

Inasmuch as McElrath-Bey concedes that her prior state

felony conviction was for arson, an enumerated crime of violence

under the relevant sentencing guideline, the district court did

not err in determining that the base offense level was 20. See

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and § 4B1.2(a)(2) and comment. (n.1). 

The district court determined that the facts of the case did not

warrant a downward departure, and therefore this court does not

have jurisdiction to review the refusal to depart. United States

v. Palmer, 122 F.3d 215, 222 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION. 

 Case: 03-51041 Document: 0051399666 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2004