Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Milton NEAL, also known as Solo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-17
Citations: 176 F. App'x 542
Docket Number: No. 05-60104
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Milton NEAL, also known as Solo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 542–543

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Milton NEAL, also known as Solo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-60104.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 17, 2006.
John Marshall Alexander, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roy Milton Neal, also known as Solo, Oxford, MS, pro se.
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roy Milton Neal appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, contending his 115-month sentence, imposed after the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is unreasonable. Specifically, Neal claims the district court's assessment of a four-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) (increase of base-level offense where defendant used or possessed firearm in connection with another felony offense) was improper because the facts underlying the enhancement exceeded the scope of his guilty-plea admissions.
Contrary to Neal's claim, the district court was permitted to look beyond Neal's guilty-plea admissions for purposes of determining his post-Booker sentence. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). The district court heard testimony on the § 2K2.1(b)(5) four-level increase and concluded the enhancement was supported by proof "far beyond a reasonable doubt". Because Neal's sentence fell within a properly calculated guideline range, it is pre sumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 485 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.