Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Verona L. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-17
Citations: 104 F. App'x 434
Docket Number: No. 04-30071
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Verona L. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 434–435

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Verona L. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-30071.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 17, 2004.
Josette Louise Cassiere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Verona L. Johnson appeals her resen-tencing for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Johnson argues that she should not have received a two-level increase in her offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines for obstruction of justice.
The district court's factual finding of obstruction of justice is plausible in light of the record as a whole. Therefore, the obstruction finding was not clearly erroneous. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1; United States v. Johnson, 352 F.3d 146, 147-48 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir.1994).
Johnson has filed a letter pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 28(j) calling our attention to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). However, we have held that Blakely does not apply to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465 (5th Cir.2004).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.