Court Opinion

ID: 9238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 05:43:37+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:47.377211
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 95-60528

                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________

          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                               Plaintiff-Appellee,

          v.

          MARVIN JENKINS,

                               Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
             for the Southern District of Mississippi
                          (3:95-CR-26LN)
_________________________________________________________________
                           April 9, 1996
Before KING, GARWOOD, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Marvin Jenkins appeals the sentence imposed on him after he

pleaded guilty to “uttering” a counterfeit security and to aiding

and abetting his co-defendant, Warren Clark, in the same offense.

Jenkins’s appeal presents two issues: (1) whether the district

court erred by increasing his sentence for more than minimal

planning based on the fact that the offense as a whole involved

     *
      Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
such; and (2) whether the court erred by not reducing his

sentence for minor or minimal participation.

     Section 2F1.1(b)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides

for enhancement if the offense of conviction involved more than

minimal planning.   In this case, the offense of conviction

included not only Jenkins's specific activities but also the

contribution those activities made to the entire offense

(involving the Great Western check) engineered by Clark.     Viewed

in that light, the offense for which Jenkins was convicted

clearly involved more than minimal planning, and the district

court did not err in increasing Jenkins's sentence accordingly.

See United States v. Scurlock, 52 F.3d 531, 540 (5th

Cir. 1995).   Further, Jenkins's conduct was not minor with regard

to the loss of the $9,305.79 (the amount of the Great Western

check), and the district court did not err by denying a minor or

minimal participant reduction.       See United States v. Lampkins,

47 F.3d 175, 180 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1440 and

115 S. Ct. 1810 (1995).

     AFFIRMED.

                                 2