Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40778/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40778-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eddie Sanford Spykes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

February 9, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40778

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDDIE SANFORD SPYKES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-44-3

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

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Eddie Sanford Spykes (Spykes) appeals the sentence imposed

after his plea of guilty to one count of conspiring to manufacture

methamphetamine between 1988 and 2001. He contends that the

district court erred by applying the 1998 edition of the Sentencing

Guidelines to relevant conduct that occurred in 1988. He did not

object to the edition of the guidelines used in the district court,

so we review only for plain error. See United States v. Krout, 66

F.3d 1420, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995). 

 Case: 03-40778 Document: 0051336067 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2004
2

The record refutes Spykes’s contention that the district court

applied U.S.S.G. § 2D1.11, a guideline that did not take effect

until 1991. Spykes benefitted when the district court declined to

apply the 2002 edition of guidelines due to ex post facto concerns

about a provision that would have raised Spykes’s offense level.

See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1). The district court’s application of

guidelines that were in effect during the conspiracy was not a

clear or obvious error that affected Spykes’s substantial rights.

See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11, comment. (n.2); United States v. Thomas, 12

F.3d 1350, 1370-71 (5th Cir. 1994). The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-40778 Document: 0051336067 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2004