Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcus W. CLAYTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-18
Citations: 275 F. App'x 313
Docket Number: No. 07-30922
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcus W. CLAYTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcus W. CLAYTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30922
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 18, 2008.
Catherine M. Maraist, lead counsel, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
C. James Rothkamm, Jr., Manasseh, Gill, Joubert & Rothkamm, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marcus W. Clayton appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to posses sion with intent to distribute cocaine. He argues that the district court plainly erred in upwardly departing from the advisory guidelines range by failing to provide fact-specific reasons for its judgment.
The record refutes Clayton's contention that the district court impermissibly relied on his arrest history in upwardly departing. The record instead discloses that Clayton engaged in ongoing criminal conduct of a serious nature, including drug and unlawful possession of a firearm crimes that were similar to the instant offense of conviction, conduct sufficient to support the district court's decision to upwardly depart from the advisory guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, cmt. (n.2(B)) (2006); United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 329 (5th Cir.2004).
Additionally, Clayton's commission of the instant offense while on federal supervised release and the revocation of his state probation following a drug arrest were reliable facts from which the district court could infer that Clayton was likely to reoffend, also warranting an upward departure. See § 4A1.3(a)(l); Lee, 358 F.3d at 328-29. Clayton therefore has not established plain error on the part of the district court. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.