Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamaica Latrin MCDADE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-27
Citations: 242 F. App'x 964
Docket Number: No. 06-51573
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamaica Latrin MCDADE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 242
Pages: 964–965

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamaica Latrin MCDADE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-51573
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 27, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ricardo Guzman, Law Office of Rick Guzman, Round Rock, TX, for Defendant Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jamaica Latrin McDade appeals the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute phencyclidine (PCP). He argues for the first time on appeal that PCP is a Schedule II controlled substance and that the district court, therefore, erred by using the statutory maximum set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) when applying the career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). He also argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the career offender enhancement on the ground that PCP was a Schedule III controlled substance.
Contrary to McDade's assertion, PCP is a Schedule II controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. § 812(a); 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12. Accordingly, McDade has not shown that the district court erred by using the statutory maximum sentence set forth in § 841(b)(1)(C).
Any objection to the application of § 4Bl.l(b) on the ground that PCP was a schedule III controlled substance would have been frivolous. Accordingly, counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise this issue before the district court. See United States v. Glinsey, 209 F.3d 386, 392-93 (5th Cir.2000); Green v. Johnson, 160 F.3d 1029, 1037 (5th Cir.1998).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.