Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-31260/USCOURTS-ca5-18-31260-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willie D. Carhee
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-31260

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WILLIE D. CARHEE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:18-CR-28-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willie D. Carhee pleaded guilty pursuant to possession of a firearm by a 

felon. The district court sentenced Carhee to 84 months of imprisonment and 

imposed a three-year term of supervised release. Carhee argues that the 

district court erroneously applied the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement 

for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense because 

the evidence did not support the factual finding that the firearms seized from 

* 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

February 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-31260 Document: 00515300448 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2020
No. 18-31260

2

his home and place of employment were in close proximity to the marijuana 

seized at both locations.

Carhee’s challenge to the enhancement is subject to plain error review 

because he never advanced the specific argument to the district court 

regarding the proximity of the firearms to the drugs. See United States v. Neal, 

578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009). The proximity question is a factual issue at 

sentencing, see United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010), 

that is not reviewable under the plain error standard, United States v. Lopez,

923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th Cir. 1991). Therefore, Carhee cannot raise the 

unpreserved argument for the first time on appeal. See id.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-31260 Document: 00515300448 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2020