Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Terrance PRATHER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-05
Citations: 312 F. App'x 705
Docket Number: No. 08-30527
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Terrance PRATHER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 312
Pages: 705–706

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Terrance PRATHER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30527
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 5, 2009.
Robert Watts Gillespie, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Betty Lee Marak, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Terrance Prather pleaded guilty to a single count indictment charging him with being a felon in possession of two Ruger firearms. Prather has appealed his sentence, contending that the district court erred by denying the Government's motion to reduce his offense level by one level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b). Prather contends that the district court did not have the discretion to deny the reduction under the circumstances of this case.
Because Prather's arguments in the district court were not sufficient to put the district court on notice of the basis of the argument he has raised on appeal, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Duhon, 541 F.3d 391, 396 (5th Cir.2008). Although we have concluded that the district court committed a clear or obvious error, see United States v. Outlaw, 319 F.3d 701, 705-09 (5th Cir.2003), and United States v. Tello, 9 F.3d 1119, 1123-28 (5th Cir.1993), and that Prather's substantial rights were affected, see United States v. Price, 516 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir.2008), we decline to exercise our discretion to correct the error because the error did not affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings in light of Prather's obstruction of justice. See Du- hon, 541 F.3d at 396. The judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under dan limited circumstances set forth in 5m Cir. R. 47.5.4.