Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30720/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30720-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yancy Todd Sonnier
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30720

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

YANCY TODD SONNIER, also known as Yancy Sonnier,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:18-CR-160-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Yancy Todd Sonnier pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent 

to distribute methamphetamine and one count of being a felon in possession of 

a firearm. He now challenges the calculation of his advisory guidelines range, 

contending that the district erred in adding two criminal history points 

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) based on its determination that he committed 

relevant conduct while under a state parole sentence. We affirm.

* 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

June 1, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30720 Document: 00515436239 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2020
No. 19-30720

2

In light of the unrebutted facts in the presentence report, Sonnier fails 

to demonstrate that the district court clearly or obviously erred in determining 

that his conduct on March 13, 2017 was relevant conduct with respect to his 

offense of conviction or that he was subject to a sentence of parole at that time. 

See United States v. Barfield, 941 F.3d 757, 761-63 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 

140 S. Ct. 1282 (2020). We are not persuaded that United States v. Rhine, 

583 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 2009), and United States v. Wall, 180 F.3d 641, 644 (5th 

Cir. 1999), compel a different conclusion. Accordingly, the district court did 

not err in applying § 4A1.1(d). See § 4A1.1, comment. (n.4).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-30720 Document: 00515436239 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2020