Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Christopher JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-16
Citations: 140 F. App'x 575
Docket Number: No. 04-50984
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Christopher JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 575–577

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Christopher JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-50984.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 16, 2005.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kimberly S. Keller, The Keller Group, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Christopher Jones appeals the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to possession of more than five grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute and the intentional use of a minor to avoid detection. Because Jones fails to show that he would have received a different sentence under Guidelines that were only advisory, he fails to establish plain error under United States v. Booker, -U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733-34 (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556). Further, given that Jones twice tested positive for drug use subsequent to his arrest, he fails to show that the district court clearly erred when it denied an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9, (5th Cir.2005), petition for cert. filed (July 26, 2005) (No. 05-5580); United States v. Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir.1996); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (nn.1(B), 3, and 5).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.