Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard HAMPSHIRE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-25
Citations: 242 F. App'x 989
Docket Number: No. 06-20965
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard HAMPSHIRE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 242
Pages: 989–990

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard HAMPSHIRE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-20965
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 25, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Hampshire appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of escape in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Hampshire contends the district court erred in failing to reduce his base offense level by four pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Pl.l(b)(3).
In United States v. Shaw, 979 F.2d 41 (5th Cir.1992), this court affirmed the denial of a § 2P1.1(b)(3) adjustment to a defen dant who walked away from a federal prison camp that was similar to the one from which Hampshire escaped. See Shaw, 979 F.2d at 42-43. Hampshire's argument that his case is factually distinguishable from Shaw is unavailing; he has failed to establish that the federal prison camp in which he was confined is similar to a community corrections center, community treatment center, or halfway house.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in refusing to reduce the sentence under § 2P1.1(b)(3). See Shaw, 979 F.2d at 45; United States v. Ruiz, 180 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir.1999). The judgment of sentence 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.