Court Opinion

ID: 11752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 06:07:32+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:15.943924
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 96-20585
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellee,

                              versus

OTIS GEORGE BRADEN,

                                               Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Southern District of Texas
                       USDC No. H-95-CR-255
_________________________________________________________________
                          April 11, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Otis George Braden appeals his guilty plea conviction and

sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.

Braden’s unconditional guilty plea bars him from challenging the

district court’s ruling on his pretrial discovery motion.      See

United States v. Smallwood, 920 F.2d 1231, 1240 (5th Cir. 1991).

Furthermore, the district court did not commit plain error by

failing to find that sentencing guideline and statutory provisions

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
relating to the carrying of a weapon during an offense were

unconstitutional. See United States v. Owens, 996 F.2d 59, 61 (5th

Cir. 1993).       Finally, the court did not commit plain error in

refusing   to     make    a     downward     departure     from     the   sentencing

guidelines      based    upon     the   fact     that    Braden’s     behavior   was

“aberrant.”      See United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th

Cir. 1994).

                                                                  A F F I R M E D.

                                           -2-