Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Sanford SPYKES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-09
Citations: 86 F. App'x 731
Docket Number: No. 03-40778
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Sanford SPYKES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 731–732

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Sanford SPYKES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-40778.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 9, 2004.
Maureen Clancy Smith, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert M. Burns, Law Offices of Robert M. Burns, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Eddie Sanford Spykes (Spykes) appeals the sentence imposed after his plea of guilty to one count of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine between 1988 and 2001. He contends that the district court erred by applying the 1998 edition of the Sentencing Guidelines to relevant conduct that occurred in 1988. He did not object to the edition of the guidelines used in the district court, so we review only for plain error. See United States v. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1434 (5th Cir.1995).
The record refutes Spykes's contention that the district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2D1.11, a guideline that did not take effect until 1991. Spykes benefitted when the district court declined to apply the 2002 edition of guidelines due to ex post facto concerns about a provision that would have raised Spykes's offense level. See U.S.S.G. § lBl.ll(b)(l). The district court's application of guidelines that were in effect during the conspiracy was not a clear or obvious error that affected Spykes's substantial rights. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11, comment, (n.2); United States v. Thomas, 12 F.3d 1350, 1370-71 (5th Cir. 1994). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.