Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11266/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11266-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie Dewayne Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11266

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RONNIE DEWAYNE JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-136-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronnie Dewayne Johnson pleaded guilty to fraudulent use of an 

unauthorized access device, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2). The district 

court sentenced him to 33 months of imprisonment and a two-year term of 

supervised release. Johnson contends that his sentence is procedurally 

unreasonable because the district court did not state if its denial of a downward 

departure under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 was based on the Government’s erroneous 

 

* 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

August 14, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11266 Document: 00513155483 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2015
No. 14-11266

2

assertion that Johnson’s state convictions were not relevant conduct to the 

instant federal matter. Johnson argued in the district court that those

convictions were relevant conduct and that he was entitled to credit for time 

served for the state sentences. He asks this court to remand the case back to 

the district court for a determination of whether the denial was based on this 

allegedly erroneous assertion by the Government.

We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a downward-departure denial 

unless the district court held a mistaken belief that the Guidelines do not give 

it the authority to depart. United States v. Sam, 467 F.3d 857, 861 (5th Cir. 

2006). The record in this matter does not reflect that the district court was 

under a mistaken belief that it lacked the authority to grant a downward 

departure. Johnson’s objections to the presentence report, the Government’s 

responses to those objections, and the amended presentence report all 

explained the possibility of a departure under § 5G1.3, comment. (n.5). 

Therefore, we will not review Johnson’s request for a remand of his case to the 

district court for a clarification as to its reasons for denying a downward 

departure. See Sam, 467 F.3d at 861.

In addition, even if Johnson could establish error, any such error would 

be harmless because the district court stated that it would impose the same

sentence regardless of any mistake in its calculation of a sentence. See United 

States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 511 (5th Cir. 2012).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-11266 Document: 00513155483 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2015