IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10039

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

TERRY BRIDGEWATER, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:15-CR-524-1 

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terry Bridgewater pleaded guilty to a single count of being a felon in 

possession of a firearm and was sentenced to a total of 98 months in prison. 

The district court ordered the instant sentence to be served consecutively to 

the undischarged state sentences imposed after his conviction for three counts 

of burglary of a building. He appeals his sentence. 

 

* 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

Fif h Circuit

FILED

December 4, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10039 Document: 00514258755 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2017
No. 17-10039

2

Bridgewater argues that the district court reversibly erred by assessing 

three criminal history points for one of the state convictions of burglary of a 

building. He notes that the offense was treated as relevant conduct under 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, and, therefore, it could not be used to determine his criminal 

history score. Because Bridgewater did not assert this argument in the district 

court, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Henry, 288 F.3d 657, 

664 (5th Cir. 2002). 

The record supports that the district court committed a clear or obvious 

error by assigning criminal history points for a sentence imposed for an offense 

that was found to be relevant conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(1) & comment.

(n.1); United States v. Cade, 279 F.3d 265, 269, 272 (5th Cir. 2002). However, 

Bridgewater cannot demonstrate that the error affected his substantial rights. 

See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). He nonetheless would 

have received three criminal history points based on the related sentences for 

his convictions for two other counts for burglary of a building; the sentences 

for those offenses could be used to calculate his criminal history score because

they were not found to constitute relevant conduct. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1(a),

4A1.2(a)(1), (a)(2) & comment. (n.1). To the extent that Bridgewater seeks to 

contest the district court’s relevant conduct finding for the first time on appeal, 

he cannot demonstrate that the factual determination was plainly erroneous. 

See United States v. Hinojosa, 484 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2007). Because he 

would have been sentenced under the same guidelines range, and there is no 

indication that, but for the district court’s error, he likely would have received 

a lesser sentence, Bridgewater has failed to show reversible plain error. See

United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, 714 F.3d 306, 317 (5th Cir. 2013); United 

States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 2011). 

 Case: 17-10039 Document: 00514258755 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2017
No. 17-10039

3

Bridgewater also argues that the district court wrongly applied U.S.S.G. 

§ 5G1.3(d), rather than § 5G1.3(b), and incorrectly ordered his instant sentence 

to run consecutively to the undischarged sentences for his burglary offenses. 

He maintains that the district court misconstrued the Guidelines as to whether 

concurrent sentences should be imposed under § 5G1.3(b) where at least one 

prior state offense is found to be relevant conduct and incorrectly believed that 

it was required to impose consecutive sentences. We need not decide whether 

Bridgewater adequately preserved his appellate arguments because he has not 

shown that the district court erred, much less plainly erred, in its application 

and construction of § 5G1.3. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 

(5th Cir. 2008).

The record indicates that the district court’s application of § 5G1.3(d) in 

these circumstances was consistent with the express language of the guideline 

and its commentary. See § 5G1.3 & comment. (nn.2(A) & 4(D)). Bridgewater

contends that, even if the district court correctly determined that § 5G1.3(d) 

applied, it wrongly believed that the provision required consecutive sentences. 

His claim is belied by the record. The record reflects that the district court 

understood that it had the discretion under § 5G1.3(d) to run the instant 

sentence partially concurrently or concurrently to the undischarged sentences 

and that it exercised its discretion to impose consecutive sentences in an effort 

to fashion the sentence that it thought was appropriate and reasonable based 

on relevant sentencing factors. See § 5G1.3(d). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 17-10039 Document: 00514258755 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/04/2017