Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J.L. Hunter ROUNTREE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-23
Citations: 108 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 04-10129
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J.L. Hunter ROUNTREE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 214–215

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J.L. Hunter ROUNTREE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-10129.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Sept. 23, 2004.
Jeffrey Robert Haag, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendants Appellant.
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
J.L. Hunter Rountree appeals the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Rountree's argument that the district court erred when it treated the instant conviction and a prior Florida conviction for Robbery Without a Weapon as "crimes of violence" for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 fails inasmuch as commentary to the guideline explicitly lists "robbery" as a "crime of violence" for purposes of the enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, comment. (n.l); United States v. Rayo-Valdez, 302 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir.2002); see also United States v. Fry, 51 F.3d 543, 546 (5th Cir.1995).
This court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of Rountree's motion for a downward departure because the record indicates that the district court knew that it could depart but chose not so to do. See United States v. Buck; United States v. Landerman, 167 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir.1999).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.