Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald T. SMITHERMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1992-03-31
Citations: 956 F.2d 1131
Docket Number: No. 91-7331
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald T. SMITHERMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, HATCHETT and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 956
Pages: 1131–1131

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald T. SMITHERMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 91-7331
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
March 31, 1992.
W. Lloyd Copeland, Claek, Deen & Copeland, Mobile, Ala., for defendant-appellant.
Richard Moore, U.S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, HATCHETT and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The sole issue in this case is whether the appellant may raise under the plain error doctrine a sentencing error which was not objected to at the time of sentencing.
At sentencing, the district court followed to the letter the procedure mandated by this court in United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 275, 112 L.Ed.2d 230 (1990), and the appellant did not object to the sentence or the sentencing process on the basis of an ex-post facto violation. He seeks to raise that claim on appeal. We hold that the ex-post facto claim has been waived. To hold otherwise would nullify our recent holding in Jones.
Accordingly, the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.