Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-10523/USCOURTS-ca5-09-10523-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julio Noel Robles
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-10523

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

JULIO NOEL ROBLES,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CR-65-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julio Noel Robles appeals the 71-month term of imprisonment imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm,

a Kimber, Model Elite Carry, .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol. Robles

challenges the district court’s application of a four-level enhancement based

upon his earlier possession of a firearm, a Smith and Wesson pistol, in

connection with another felony offense, possession of marijuana. See

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 19, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-10523 Document: 00511007160 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2010
No. 09-10523

2

Robles’s challenge is without merit. The two firearms offenses occurred

within four months of each other. In each instance, the discovery of the firearm

resulted from an investigation into suspected drug and/or gang activity by

Robles. Additionally, Robles possessed similar firearms (pistols), and he

possessed both firearms after a felony conviction. As in United States v.

Brummett, 355 F.3d 343, 345 (5th Cir. 2003), the “pattern of behavior of

possessing firearms was similar and regular, and the time period between the

offenses permits a conclusion that the firearms possessions were part of an

ongoing series of offenses.” The district court therefore did not err in applying

the § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement. See Brummett, 355 F.3d at 344-45.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-10523 Document: 00511007160 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2010