Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Levi MELONE, also known as Bubba Chicken, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-25
Citations: 294 F. App'x 113
Docket Number: No. 05-30604
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Levi MELONE, also known as Bubba Chicken, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 113–114

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Levi MELONE, also known as Bubba Chicken, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-30604
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 25, 2008.
Stephen A. Higginson, Assistant, U.S. Attorney, Duane Evans, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, William P. Gibbens, Schonekas, Winsberg, Evans, & McGoey, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher Albert Aberle, Mandeville, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Levi Melone appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride and 50 grams or more of cocaine base and use of a communication facility in a drug trafficking offense. Melone argues that the district court erred by applying 21 U.S.C. § 851(e) to hold that his denial of a prior conviction was time barred.
The evidence before the district court established the fact of Melone's prior conviction. Melone offered no argument or evidence before the district court, nor has he offered any before this court, that calls into question his identity as the offender named in the prior conviction. Accordingly, he has not shown error in the application of the enhancement, and his conviction is affirmed. See United States v. Majors, 328 F.3d 791, 796-97 (5th Cir.2003); United States v. Garcia, 954 F.2d 273, 277-78 (5th Cir.1992).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.