P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31232 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. TE RRENCE AT HI ERRY , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C R
- 20055- 1 B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Terr enc e A. Th i er r y pl eade d gui l t y t o po ss essi on of a f i r ear m by a c onvi c t ed f

el on i n vi ol at i on o f

18 U . S. C . § 922( g) , and he w as s ent enc ed as an a r m e dc a r e e rc r i mi n a lt o 1 5 y e a r s o f i mp r i s o n me n tp u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 24( e) and U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 4. F or t h e f

i rst ti m e on ap pea l , T h i erry argues t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed byfail i ng t o s t at e o ro t he r w i s e i ndi c at e o n t he r e c o r d t hati tha d c o ns i de r e d t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 31232

2 r e l e v a nts t a t u t e s o rs e n t e n c i n gd o c u me n t s b e f o r e i t . A s T h i e r r yc o n c e d e s , we revi ew t h i s i ssue on l y f or pl ai n error . T o show pl ai n err or, t h e app el l an tm u st sho w a f

or fei t ed e r r ort hatis cl earorob vi ous and t hataf fec t s hi s subs t ant i al r ig h ts . P u cket tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 12 9 S. Ct . 14 23 , 1 42 9 ( 20 09 ) . I f t he a ppe l l ant m a k e s s u c h as h o w in g , th is c o u r t h a s th e d is c r e tio n to co r r e c t t h e e r r o rb u t o n ly i f i ts er i ous l y af

fec t s the fai r nes s, i nt egr i t y, orpubl i c r eput at i on o f j udi c i al p r o c e e d in g s . I

d. T h i erry c i t es no au t h ori t y f or t h e proposi t i on t h at t h e d i st ri ctcourtm u st m ak e s uc h a n indic ati o n o n t he r e c o r d, a nd t hi s c o ur tha s no ta ddr e s s e d t he qu est i on . U n l i ke the case r el i ed u pon b y T h i erry, in h i s case the d i st ri ctcourt had t he rel evantdocum ent s r egar di ng hi s pr i orcr i m i nalconvi c t i ons s uch t hat t h e P S R w as not t h e court’ s on l y source of i n f orm ati on abou t t h ose c on vi ct i on s. Cf. Un i t ed S t ate s v. G arza-Lop ez , 410 F. 3d 268, 275 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) ( st at i ng t hat

“ s e ve r alr e c e nt c as e s hav e m ad e i t c l e ar t hat t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s r e l i anc e o n t he P S R w a s e r r o r” w h e r e th e r e w e r e n o o th e rd o c u m e n ts b e fo r e th e co u r t). B ecau se no p re ce d e n t i alcase requ i res t h e di st ri ctcourtexpl i ci t l y t o show or st at e t hat i t r evi ew ed t he r el evantdoc um ent s, Th i er r y has nots how n er r ort hat is cle a ro ro b v io u s . S ee 129 S. C t . at 142 9. A dd i t i on a ll y , b e ca u se he does n ot ar gue t hatt he do c um e nt s s ubm i t t e d t o t he di s t r i ctco ur tfai l e d t o s upp o r tt he e nhan c e m e nto rt hathi s pr i o ro f fen ses di d no tq ual i f y hi m f o re nhan c e m e nt u n d er § 9 2 4 (e) , h e h a s fai l ed to sh ow th a t th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s fa i l u re to i n d i ca te o n t he r e c o r d t hati t had r e vi e w e d t he do c um e nt s s upp o r t i ng t he e nhan c e m e nt a ffe c te dh is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . S eeid . AF F I RMED.