Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-05-30910/USCOURTS-ca5-05-30910-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leron Michael Alexander
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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

F I L E D

August 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-30910

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LERON MICHAEL ALEXANDER,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:03-CR-00279-1

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

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leron Michael Alexander appeals from his conviction of three

counts of bank robbery, one count of carjacking, and four counts of

using, carrying, or brandishing a firearm during a crime of

violence. Alexander contends that the two firearm charges arising

from the June 18, 2001, carjacking and bank robbery he committed

should have resulted in one firearm sentence under 18 U.S.C. §

924(c) because the predicate offenses were grouped under the

Sentencing Guidelines and because the carjacking and bank robbery

 Case: 05-30910 Document: 0051922826 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2006
No. 05-30910

-2-

occurred nearly simultaneously. He also argues that the district

court erred by adjusting his guideline sentencing level as to one

of his bank robberies because one of his victims was a vulnerable

victim.

The evidence showed that Alexander brandished a firearm when

he committed his carjacking offense, then again when he robbed the

bank. Therefore, Alexander used a firearm twice to commit two

different predicate offenses, carjacking and bank robbery. There

were thus two units of prosecution, see United States v. Phipps,

319 F.3d 177, 186 (5th Cir. 2003), and § 924(c) authorized separate

convictions and sentences. See id.

We need not address whether the vulnerable victim adjustment

was erroneous. Without the adjustment, Alexander’s combined

offense level for his multiple offenses would have remained 28, see

U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4(a), and his total offense level would have

remained the same. Any error regarding the vulnerable victim

adjustment is thus harmless. See United States v. Sidhu, 130 F.3d

644, 652 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 05-30910 Document: 0051922826 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/28/2006