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- 30176 Su m m ar y Cal 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. T O N YJO N E S , al so kn ow n as B oochi e 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 E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 06- C R
- 269- 4 B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d S T E W A R T an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * T o n yJ o n e s a p p e a ls th e to ta l 2 4 0
- m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e dfo llo w in gh is guil t y pl e a c o nvi c t i o n f o rc o ns pi r i ng t o di s t r ibut e 5 0 gr am s o rm o r e o f c o c ai ne b a s e a n daq u a n tit yo f c o c a in e h y d r o c h lo r id e a n dco n s p ir in g , d u r in ga n d in r e la tio n to ad r u gtr a ffic k in gcr im e , to u s e , c a r r y , a n dp o s s e s s fir e a r m s in f u rt h eran ce of

t h e drugt raf

f i cki n g cr im e . Jon es argues t h at th e di st ri ctcourt erred by t reat i n g h i s 2003 st ate fel on y dru g convic t i on as a “ pri or c on vi ct i on ” f or United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30176

2 p u r p o s e s o f

e n h a n c i n ghi s s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n tt o 2 1 U. S . C . § 8 4 1 (b ) ( 1 ) (A) . H e ar gue s t hatb e c aus e he w as c o nvi c t e d o f t he s t at e f

e l o ny dr ug o f

fe ns e dur i ng t he t i m e pe r i o d o f

t he c o ns pi r ac y all e ge d i n t he fe de r ali ndi c t m e nt , t he st at e fe l o ny dru g convic t ion coul d n otha ve been a “ pri or c on vi ct i on ” f or purp oses of § 8 4 1 (b )(1)(A). T h e is s u e is a q u e s tio n o f la w o r d in a r ilys u bje c t t o d e n o v o re v ie w . S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . Mank i ns , 1 35 F. 3d9 46 , 9 49 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 98 ) . The G o ve r nm e nt ar gue s t hat revi e w s ho ul d b e l i m i t e d t o pl ai n e r r o r . W e ne e d no tde c i de t he qu est i on of

t h e app ropri ate st an da rd of revi ew b ecau se the di st ri ctcou rtd i d n ot err. T h e m an da t ory m i n i m u m t erm o f im pri sonm en tf or § 841 ( a) of

fen ses i n creases t o 20 yea rs of i m pri sonm en t i f t h e defen da n t“ com m i t s s u ch a vi ol ati on a fte rap r io rco n v ic tio n fo rafe lo n yd r u go ffe n s e h a s b e c o m e fin a l.” § 8 41(b) ( 1) (A) . Jo nes doe s notdi sput e thathi s s t at e co nvi c t i on w as f i nalort hat t he c o nvi c t i o n was f

o r a fe l o ny dr ug o f

fe ns e . The i s s ue f

o r ap pe ali s w he t he rt he c o nvi c t i o n c o ns t i t ut e s a“ pr i o rc o nvi c t i o n” f o rpur po s e s o f

§ 8 41 (b) ( 1) (A) . The s e nt e nc e e nhan c e m e ntw as pr o pe rb e c aus e J o ne s ’ s 2 00 3 s t at e fel on y dr ug c o nvi c t i o n w as f

i nal w e l l be f

o r e t he 20 06 e nd o f t he c o ns pi r ac y as a l l e ge d i n t he fe d e r a l in d i c t m e n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. G ree n , 293 F . 3d886 , 894 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. W h eelock , N o. 93- 843 3 , 2 1 F . 3d 1109, 1994 W L 171737 a t* 3 ( 5 t h C ir . A p r . 2 9 , 1 9 9 4 ) (u n p u b lis h e d); seealso 5 T H C IR . R . 4 7 .5 .3 (u n p u b lis h e do p in io n s is s u e db e fo r e J a n u a r y1 , 1 9 9 6 , a r e p r e c e d e n t); c. f . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hass , 1 5 0 F .3d 4 4 3 , 4 5 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.