Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan Lawrence SHELBY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-30
Citations: 174 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 05-40432
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan Lawrence SHELBY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 203–204

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan Lawrence SHELBY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40432.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided March 30, 2006.
David Haskell Henderson, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Zachary Joseph Hawthorn, Law Office of Joseph C. Hawthorn, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alan Lawrence Shelby pleaded guilty to escape from federal custody and was sen- fenced to 40 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, $2,692.60 in restitution, and a $100 special assessment.
Shelby argues on appeal that the district court erred in determining that the instant offense of escape was a crime of violence qualifying him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. He concedes that this court held in United States v. Ruiz, 180 F.3d 675, 677 (5th Cir.1999), that escape constitutes a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. He argues, however, that Ruiz was effectively overruled by this court's subsequent decision in United States v. Charles, 301 F.3d 309 (5th Cir.2002) (en banc), because Charles overruled any prior cases conflating the guidelines "crime of violence" definition found in § 4B1.2 and the differing statutory "crime of violence" definition found in 18 U.S.C. § 16. Ruiz did not conflate the definitions of § 16 and § 4B1.2(a). Therefore, Charles did not effectively overrule Ruiz on this basis.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.