Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Farwett MILTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-19
Citations: 231 F. App'x 390
Docket Number: No. 06-60925
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Farwett MILTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 390–390

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Farwett MILTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-60925
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 19, 2007.
William Chadwick Lamar, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kenneth Harold Coghlan, Rayburn Coghlan Law Firm, Oxford, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Farwett Milton appeals his 70-month prison sentence for his guilty-plea conviction of distribution of more than five grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Milton contends that the district court erred in determining the quantity of cocaine base attributable to him for sentencing purposes. He asserts that the district court should not have considered conduct in five indictment counts that were dismissed pursuant to Milton's plea agreement.
Milton raised such a contention in his objections to the presentence report; however, he explicitly withdrew the contention at the beginning of his sentencing hearing. The withdrawal of an objection constitutes the waiver of that objection by the defendant. United States v. Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir.1995). 'Waived errors are entirely unreviewable, unlike forfeited errors, which are reviewable for plain error." Id. Milton's withdrawal of his sentencing objection amounted to a waiver thereof and renders the objection unreviewable on appeal. See id.
For the first time on appeal, Milton contends that the district court's consideration of conduct from the dismissed counts violated his Sixth Amendment rights under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Even after Booker, a district court is required to calculate the guidelines range in the same manner as before Booker and to make factual findings by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 797-98 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2884, 165 L.Ed.2d 908 (2006). Milton has not established error, plain or otherwise, as to his Booker claim/ See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc).
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.