Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jermaine KEYES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-16
Citations: 538 F. App'x 577
Docket Number: No. 12-40872
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jermaine KEYES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 577–578

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jermaine KEYES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-40872.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 16, 2013.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Soko-low, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Keyes appeals from his conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, asserting that the district court erred and imposed an unreasonable sentence in holding him responsible for additional marijuana from a previous case in which he was acquitted.
This Court reviews the district court's application and interpretation of the sentencing guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Gonzalez-Terrazas, 529 F.3d 293, 296 (5th Cir.2008). The district court's findings about the quantity of drugs on which a sentence should be based, including amounts that were part of a common plan or scheme, are findings of fact which are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Mitchell, 964 F.2d 454, 457-58 (5th Cir.1992). The district court here did not clearly err in light of the temporal proximity and similarity of the offenses (e.g., transporting similar quantities of marijuana in similar packaging in a tractor trailer from a similar starting point after similar stops to a similar destination). 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. Despite the statement at oral argument by defense counsel that the destinations of Sou-thaven, Mississippi, and Memphis, Tennessee, are "separated by hundreds of miles," Sou-thaven is actually a suburb of Memphis.