Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40633/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40633-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jamie Logan
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

February 27, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40633

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

JAMIE LOGAN,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CR-37-1

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jamie Logan appeals hissentence following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with the

intent to distribute lessthan 50 grams of a mixture orsubstance containing methamphetamine. Logan

first argues that the district court improperly enhanced his offense level for possessing a dangerous

weapon in connection with the drug trafficking offense.

 Case: 03-40633 Document: 0051245376 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2004
 

-2-

 The district court’s decision to apply the U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) adjustment is not clearly

erroneous asit is not clearly improbable that the firearms were connected with Logan’s drug offense.

See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.3); United States v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 271, 277-78 (5th Cir.

1994). The testimony showed that at the time of Logan’s arrest, the firearms were located in Logan’s

bedroom which was six to eight feet from where Logan was observed. Moreover, at the time of

Logan’s arrest, he was found in possession of methamphetamine. 

Logan also contends that the district court erred by concluding that his prior convictions for

burglary of a motor vehicle were not related for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). Although

Logan asserts that his prior crimes were related for the purpose of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) because

they were functionally consolidated, he has failed to make a sufficient showing to overcome the

deference afforded to the district court’s ruling on that issue. See Buford v. United States, 532 U.S.

59, 64 (2001). The district court also correctly concluded that his prior crimes were not part of a

“single common scheme or plan.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3); see also United States v.

Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-40633 Document: 0051245376 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2004