### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-30257 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LONNIE INGRAM, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:11-CR-245-1

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lonnie Ingram appeals the 1 2 0 -month statutory maximum sentence i m p o s e d after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. A stipulated factual basis established that Ingram attempted to shoot one man in the head, but the gun failed to fire. On a second a t t e m p t, Ingram missed the intended victim but shot another man. While in jail, Ingram urged his associates to persuade or coerce the shooting victim t o deny that Ingram had U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 2 1, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-30257 Document: 00511995113 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2012No. 12-30257

shot him. At sentencing, Ingram attempted to deny the accuracy of the factual basis. Ingram contends that the district court erred by increasing the sentence for obstruction of justice and by failing to reduce the sentence for acceptance of responsibility. I n gr a m ’ s attempts to cause the victim to exonerate him amounted to obstruction with respect to the relevant conduct and sentencing for the offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 & comment. (n.4(A)). Ingram has shown no “extraordinary” circumstances warranting a reduction for acceptance of re s p o nsibility in light of the increase for obstruction of justice. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) ; § 3 E 1.1, comment. (n.4). Ingram’s timely guilty plea alone did not entitle him to the reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). Moreover, in contradiction of the factual basis, he attempted to avoid responsibility by telling the court at sentencing that he never did what the Government accused him of doing. The district court c o m m it t e d no error, plain or otherwise, by denying

cr e dit f or acc e p t anc e of re sponsibility and increasing the sentence for obstruction of justice. We need not resolve Ingram’s assertion that the distri c t c o u rt erred by denying a motion to continue sentencing, by allowing the Gover n m e nt’s late objection to the PSR, and by applying the attempted-murder guideline. See F E D
. R. C R I M
. P. 52; Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 134-35 (2009). Any error did not affect Ingram’s substantial rights and was therefore harmless because the court emphatically stated that, based on the stipulated facts, it would have impo s e d t he same sentence under § 3553(a) regardless of the Government’s objection and arguments about the sentence. See United States v. Richardson , 676 F.3d 491, 511 (5th Cir. 2012 ). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-30257 Document: 00511995113 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2012