Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Doral WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-03
Citations: 145 F. App'x 88
Docket Number: No. 05-30145
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Doral WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 88–88

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Doral WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-30145
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 3, 2005.
Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin Zolot, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Betty Lee Marak, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Doral Williams appeals the 87-month prison sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The sentence was increased under the now-advisory sentencing guidelines based on the district court's finding that Williams possessed the firearm in connection with the felony of illegal discharge of a firearm.
Williams fails to show that the district court plainly erred by applying the "preponderance" standard, or by finding that Williams illegally discharged the firearm, or by declining to conclude sua sponte that the discharge of the weapon was justified by self-defense. See United States v. Partida, 385 F.3d 546, 565 (5th Cir.2004) (plain error review), cert. denied sub nom., Vigil v. United States, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1616, 161 L.Ed.2d 289 (2005). The judgment of the district court therefore 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.