Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Darnell BURKS, also known as Donald Burks, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-17
Citations: 225 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 05-50225
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Darnell BURKS, also known as Donald Burks, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Darnell BURKS, also known as Donald Burks, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50225
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 17, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donald Darnell Burks, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Larry Chris lies, Rockport, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Donald Darnell Burks appeals from his 96-month prison sentence for possession of an unregistered firearm. For the first time on appeal, Burks contends that the district court should have decreased his offense level by two levels under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) based on his minor role in the offense.
The district court's determination that a defendant did not play a minor or minimal role in the offense is a finding of fact. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 126 S.Ct. 268, 163 L.Ed.2d 241 (2005). Because the claim was not raised below, it is reviewable for plain error only. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc).
Although Burks's codefendant, Elzie Roberts, may have had a more active role than Burks in using the firearm to commit robbery, the evidence did not establish that Burks was so uninvolved as to be " 'peripheral to the advancement of the illicit activity.' " See Villanueva, 408 F.3d at 204 (quoting United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 446-47 (5th Cir.2001)). Burks has thus not shown plain error. See Calverley, 37 F.3d at 163; see also United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th Cir. 1991) (fact questions that can be resolved upon objection at sentencing cannot constitute plain error).
The sentence is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.