Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Darone WILLIAMS, 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 146
Docket Number: No. 04-10033
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Darone WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 146–147

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Darone WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-10033
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 17, 2004.
Jeffrey Robert Haag, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerry V. Beard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Darone Williams appeals his sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Williams challenges the district court's increase in his base offense level by four levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), arguing that no evidence existed that he used or possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense.
We address the merits of Williams's sentencing claim, despite the waiver-of-appeal provision in Williams's plea agreement, in the light of the Government's explicit assertion that it chooses not to rely on the appeal waiver. United States v. Rhodes, 253 F.3d 800, 804 (5th Cir.2001).
The district court did not clearly err in determining that Williams used or possessed a firearm in connection with a counterfeiting offense. See United States v. Armstead, 114 F.3d 504, 512 (5th Cir.1997); United States v. Condren, 18 F.3d 1190, 1193, 1199-1200 (5th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).
Williams seeks leave to file a supplemental brief in which he contends that the adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) violated Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), because it was based on facts not charged in his indictment, not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and not admitted by him at his plea hearing. Williams has submitted his supplemental brief, and his motion to file it is GRANTED. As Williams concedes, his Blakely argument is foreclosed by United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir.2004) (holding that Blakely does not apply to the federal sentencing guidelines), petition for cert, filed (U.S. July 14, 2004).
The judgment of the district court 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.