Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-18
Citations: 214 F. App'x 431
Docket Number: No. 06-30288
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 431–431

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30288
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 18, 2007.
Michael J. Jefferson, U.S. Attorney’s Office Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joseph Kelsey Scott, III, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marcus M. Williams appeals the sentence that he received after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Williams argues that the district court erred when it enhanced his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) because he would not be convicted for "another felony offense" in light of Louisiana jurisprudence applying La.Rev.Stat. 14:27. Williams's argument is unavailing. Commentary to the Guideline explicitly states that a conviction need not be obtained for the Guideline to apply. § 2K2.1(b)(5), comment, (n. 4). Moreover, the offense conduct as set forth in the Presentence Report supports the district court's determination that Williams possessed a firearm and ammunition in connection with another felony offense. See United States v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560, 584 (5th Cir.2006). Williams's challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence, which was within the applicable guidelines range of imprisonment, is likewise unavailing. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Ruff, 984 F.2d 635, 640 (5th Cir.1993).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.