Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Doris Denise MCELRATH-BEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-20
Citations: 95 F. App'x 102
Docket Number: No. 03-51041
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Doris Denise MCELRATH-BEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 102–102

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Doris Denise MCELRATH-BEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-51041
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 20, 2004.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Raymond L. Kohler, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Doris Denise McElrath-Bey appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for one count of making a false statement during acquisition of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and § 924(a)(2). She asserts that the district court erred in determining that her base offense level was 20 on account of a prior state felony conviction for residential arson. She also asserts that the district court erred in failing to grant her a downward departure from the United States Sentencing Guidelines sentencing range because she purchased a firearm in order to protect herself from threatened harm.
Inasmuch as McElrath-Bey concedes that her prior state felony conviction was for arson, an enumerated crime of violence under the relevant sentencing guideline, the district court did not err in determining that the base offense level was 20. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and § 4B1.2(a)(2) and comment. (n.l). The district court determined that the facts of the case did not warrant a downward departure, and therefore this court does not have jurisdiction to review the refusal to depart. United States v. Palmer, 122 F.3d 215, 222 (5th Cir.1997).
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.