Court Opinion

ID: 9891974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 00:00:34.890095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.787524
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20409         Document: 00516937922             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/19/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 22-20409
                                                                                FILED
                                                                         October 19, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jimmy Lee Smart,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-292-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Jimmy Lee Smart appeals the sentence imposed following his
   conviction for possessing a counterfeit mail key. He argues the district court
   erred by applying a 12-level loss enhancement.                    These are Smart’s
   contentions: (1) there was no evidence of actual loss and (2) while the
   Guidelines commentary expands the definition of loss to included intended
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 22-20409       Document: 00516937922        Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/19/2023

                                   No. 22-20409

   loss, such an expansion is erroneous under the deference doctrine refined in
   Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019). See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) & cmt.
   n.3(A). He also challenges the Guidelines commentary’s providing for a
   $500 minimum loss amount per unauthorized access device. See § 2B1.1
   cmt. n.3(F)(i).
          After filing his appellate brief, Smart filed an unopposed motion for
   summary disposition. He concedes his argument is foreclosed by our recent
   decision in United States v. Vargas, 74 F.4th 673, 678 (5th Cir. 2023) (en
   banc). There we held that Kisor’s less deferential framework does not govern
   the Guidelines and its commentary. Smart seeks to preserve his argument
   for further review and acknowledges that his latter argument does not affect
   the Guidelines calculations.
          Summary disposition is appropriate in cases in which, among other
   instances, “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the
   case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
   Smart is correct that his argument is foreclosed. Accordingly, Smart’s
   motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s
   judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                        2