Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Lee THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-19
Citations: 225 F. App'x 283
Docket Number: No. 05-10321
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Lee THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 283–283

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Lee THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-10321
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 19, 2007.
Jeffrey Robert Haag, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerry V. Beard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, David E. Sloan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Willie Lee Thomas appeals the four-year sentence that was imposed following the revocation of his term of supervised release. He argues for the first time in this appeal that his sentence is improper because it was based on the district court's erroneous belief that he qualified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. Thomas has not shown that the district court committed an obvious error that affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 267, 163 L.Ed.2d 240 (2005). Consequently, he has shown no plain error in connection with his sentence. See id.
Thomas also argues that the district court should not have relied upon the pre-sentence report (PSR) that was prepared in connection with his original offense. Because this claim was raised for the first time in Thomas's reply brief, we decline to consider it. See United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d 433, 449 (5th Cir.2004). The judgment of the district court 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.