Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Warren CHAPMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-17
Citations: 235 F. App'x 341
Docket Number: No. 05-20889
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Warren CHAPMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 341–342

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Warren CHAPMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-20889.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 17, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Kevin Matthew Hall, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Warren Chapman appeals his sentence following his conviction of one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. To avoid ex post facto issues, the district court calculated Chapman's guideline range using the 2002 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the April 30, 2003 Supplement. The district court enhanced Chapman's of fense level by two levels under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.4(b)(2) because Chapman possessed ten or more computer files containing a visual depiction involving sexual exploitation of a minor and by two levels under § 2G2.4(b)(5)(A) because the offense involved at least 10, but fewer than 150 images. Under United States v. Gonzalez, 445 F.3d 815, 818 (5th Cir.2006), this double-counting was error, and the Government concedes that the error requires re-sentencing. We vacate the sentence but add that the court's assessment of a life term of supervised release was consistent with the guidelines and reasonable under the circumstances.
SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RE-SENTENCING.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.