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. 08-41020

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMILE NICOLE WILSON

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-235

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jamile Nicole Wilson appeals his sentence following his guilty plea

conviction for possession with intent to distribute or dispense cocaine base. The

district court’s applied the career offender guideline under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and

sentenced Wilson to 188 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised

release. Wilson contends that the district court erred by imposing the career

offender enhancement under § 4B1.1.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 15, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-41020

2

A defendant is a career offender under § 4B1.1 if “(1) the defendant was

at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant

offense of conviction, (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either

a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense, and (3) the defendant has

at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled

substance offense.” § 4B1.1(a). Wilson challenges only the third element,

arguing that the district court erred by applying the career offender

enhancement based solely on his presentence report’s characterization of the two

prior convictions underlying the enhancement, a Texas conviction for burglary

of a habitation with intended other felony and a federal conviction for conspiracy

to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or

dispense cocaine base.

While the district court was not provided materials independent from the

presentence report documenting these prior convictions, Wilson’s counsel

admitted at sentencing that Wilson was in fact convicted of the burglary and

conspiracy offenses. The district court was permitted to rely on this admission

in determining that those convictions could be used as a basis to enhance

Wilson’s sentence. See United States v. Jenkins, 487 F.3d 279, 281 (5th Cir.

2007); United States v. Mendoza-Sanchez, 456 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 2006).

After filing a written objection challenging Wilson’s burglary conviction “as

a basis for asserting he is a career offender,” Wilson’s counsel conceded at the

sentencing hearing that Wilson’s burglary and conspiracy convictions satisfied

the requirements of the career offender guideline, stating, “Yes, statutorily and

pursuant to the sentencing guidelines those would qualify, I can’t argue with

that.” In light of this concession, Wilson waived the issue whether those

convictions fall within the definition of “crime of violence” or “controlled

substance offense” for purposes of the career offender enhancement. See United

States v. Salazar, 542 F.3d 139, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct.

1669 (2009). Wilson also briefs no such argument in this court and thus has
No. 08-41020

3

waived any such challenge here. See United States v. Edwards, 303 F.3d 606,

647 (5th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.