Court Opinion

ID: 9412906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 22:00:32.929183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:37.913140
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11066        Document: 00516842406             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/01/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-11066
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                 August 1, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Walter Leonard Jenkins,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:22-CR-155-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Walter Leonard Jenkins appeals his 60-month sentence for possessing
   a firearm as a convicted felon. Although the advisory guidelines range was
   30 to 37 months of imprisonment, the district court applied an upward
   departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. Jenkins challenges the procedural
   reasonableness of his sentence.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11066      Document: 00516842406           Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                     No. 22-11066

          First, Jenkins argues that the court’s statement that he continued to
   engage in criminal activity while on supervision is clearly erroneous as a
   factual matter. Jenkins did not object to the procedural reasonableness of his
   sentence in the district court.            Thus, we review the procedural
   reasonableness of the sentence for plain error.            See United States v.
   Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 362-64 (5th Cir. 2009).            While the
   presentence report stated that Jenkins's parole records did not reveal any
   filed violations, it detailed that he was twice arrested and convicted in 2014
   while on parole for his 2012 burglary. Then, in 2017 and 2018, he was again
   arrested and convicted twice while serving parole for his 2015 assault. The
   court thus did not err in finding that Jenkins engaged in criminal activity
   while on supervision. See United States v. Lavalais, 960 F.3d 180, 189 (5th
   Cir. 2020).
          Second, Jenkins asserts that the district court factually erred in finding
   that his criminal conduct has continued to escalate to involve violence and
   firearms. But as a juvenile in 2001, Jenkins committed a burglary. When he
   turned 18, he committed two assaults. He then committed another burglary
   in 2012 and another assault in 2015. Finally, three years after his release from
   prison, Jenkins beat his teenage son and possessed a firearm, leading to his
   instant conviction. Jenkins’s prior sentences were not considered as relevant
   conduct, and he did not receive any adjustments to his base offense level
   because of them. Thus, the district court was free to consider his firearm
   possession in deciding whether to depart, and Jenkins possessing a firearm
   with his criminal history demonstrated a “lack of deterrence and continued
   criminal activity,” which are proper grounds for departing under § 4Al.3.
   Lavalais, 960 F.3d at 189.
          Finally, Jenkins argues that the statute of conviction, 18 U.S.C.
   § 922(g) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. As he concedes,

                                          2
Case: 22-11066        Document: 00516842406       Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                   No. 22-11066

   his argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145
   (5th Cir. 2013).
          Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                        3