Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory Grant NOBLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-20
Citations: 465 F. App'x 348
Docket Number: No. 11-40628
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory Grant NOBLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 465
Pages: 348–349

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory Grant NOBLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-40628
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 20, 2012.
Lisa Grisset Flournoy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lufkin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Margaret Loraine Schmucker, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Grant Noble appeals the sentence of 151-months' imprisonment un- posed following his guilty-plea conviction of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He contends the Government breached the plea agreement by supporting application of the Sentencing Guidelines' career-offender provision. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Review is de novo. E.g., United States v. Roberts, 624 F.3d 241, 245 (5th Cir.2010).
The written plea agreement stipulated a base offense level of 20, but contained the following provision: "The parties also agree that the defendant's offense level may be affected by the criminal history calculation by the United States Probation Office, and it will not be a violation of this agreement for either party to argue for or against the changed offense level resulting from the defendant's criminal history." The Government's subsequent support of the career-offender enhancement is consistent with this provision. See id. at 245-46.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.