Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime BARRON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-17
Citations: 114 F. App'x 147
Docket Number: No. 04-40188
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime BARRON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 147–148

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime BARRON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40188
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 17, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tony Ray Roberts, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Anthony Martin Smith, Law Office of Anthony M. Smith, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jaime Barron appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams but less than five kilograms of cocaine. He argues that his three prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions were ineligible for use in calculating his criminal history score because the waivers of his right to counsel in those cases were invalid. He asserts that, without the usage of these prior convictions, he should have been awarded a downward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
Barron has failed to meet his burden to show that those waivers were invalid. See Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 124 S.Ct. 1379, 1390, 158 L.Ed.2d 209 (2004). The district court's use of Barron's prior convictions for purposes of determining his criminal history score was therefore proper. Because Barron's criminal history score exceeded one, he was ineligible for the U.S.S.G. § 501.2(a) adjustment. Accordingly, the district court's judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.