Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paris Lynn BENNETTE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-12
Citations: 157 F. App'x 714
Docket Number: No. 05-40130
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paris Lynn BENNETTE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 714–714

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paris Lynn BENNETTE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40130.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 12, 2005.
Jennifer Bess Lowery, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Bernard John Shealy, Amy R. Blalock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Paris Lynn Bennette appeals his 162-month sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute more than 5 grams but less than 50 grams of cocaine base. He argues that the district court erred in computing his criminal history category because it failed to consider certain prior convictions as "related" under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2. He contends that the sentences in those cases were consolidated because the sentences were concurrent.
The prior sentences were based on separate convictions in cases that involved various types of crimes. These crimes involved independent arrests and were distinguished by different offense dates' and cause numbers. Thus, there is no basis to conclude that the prior sentences are "related" for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2. See United States v. Garcia, 962 F.2d 479, 482-83 (5th Cir.1992), abrogated on other grounds by Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001); United States v. Velazquez-Overa, 100 F.3d 418, 423-24 (5th Cir.1996). Bennette's argument that Garcia and Velasquez-Overa were wrongly decided and should be overruled is unavailing. We are bound by this court's precedent on the issue. See United States v. Ramirez-Velasquez, 322 F.3d 868, 876 (5th Cir.2003). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.