IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10925

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DEMARCUS PEOPLES,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-126-1

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In 2015, pursuant to a plea agreement, Demarcus Peoples pleaded guilty 

to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) 

and 924(a)(2). His pre-sentence-investigation report (PSR) recommended, 

inter alia: a four-level enhancement, pursuant to Sentencing Guideline 

2K2.1(b)(1)(B), “[b]ecause the offense involved 11 firearms”; and a second four-

* 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

July 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-10925 Document: 00513616459 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2016
No. 15-10925

level enhancement, pursuant to Guideline 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), because he 

possessed a firearm in connection with a felony drug offense. 

Peoples objected to both enhancements in district court, claiming: there 

was insufficient evidence to connect him to 11 firearms; the information to 

which he pleaded guilty referenced only one firearm; and, the firearm forming

the basis of his offense was not connected to a felony drug crime. At sentencing, 

the district court: overruled his objections; adopted the PSR’s factual findings; 

and determined the total offense level was 27. Combined with a criminal 

history of IV, the advisory sentencing range was 100 to 120 months’ 

imprisonment. 

In sentencing Peoples to 100 months’ imprisonment, the court stated: 

“[E]ven if I’m wrong as to any of my rulings on the objections, [the] facts alone 

. . . justify a sentence of 100 months, perhaps more”. In challenging that 

sentence, Peoples asserts the court erred in imposing both four-level 

enhancements.

Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly 

preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly 

calculate the Guidelines-sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence 

to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 48–51 (2007). In that respect, 

for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is 

reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States 

v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Peoples’ challenges need not be considered, however, because, even 

assuming arguendo the court erred, the error was harmless. Our court has 

“held . . . a [G]uidelines calculation error is harmless where the district court 

has considered the correct [G]uidelines range and has stated that it would 

2

 Case: 15-10925 Document: 00513616459 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2016
No. 15-10925

impose the same sentence even if that range applied”. United States v. 

Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 511 (5th Cir. 2012). “Even if a court did not consider 

the correct range, an error in the [G]uidelines calculation [is] . . . harmless if 

the proponent of the sentence convincingly demonstrates both (1) that the 

district court would have imposed the same sentence had it not made the error, 

and (2) that it would have done so for the same reasons it gave at the prior 

sentencing.” Id. (quoting United States v. Ibarra–Luna, 628 F.3d 712, 714 (5th 

Cir. 2010)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

As discussed above, the court stated that, even if it was incorrect in 

overruling Peoples’ objections, a 100-month sentence was nonetheless 

appropriate. We have held similar statements sufficiently establish harmless 

error. Id. at 512–13; United States v. Gallegos-Carmona, 630 F. App’x 267, 270 

(5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Reyes-Guzman, 519 F. App’x 317, 317 (5th Cir. 

2013).

AFFIRMED. 

3

 Case: 15-10925 Document: 00513616459 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/29/2016