United States v. Dawson
United States v. Dawson
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50196 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus
MARCUS ANTONY DAWSON, a/k/a MARCUS ANTHONY DAWSON, Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-99-CR-538-ALL ________________________________________ November 7, 2001 Before POLITZ, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marcus Antony Dawson, a/k/a Marcus Anthony Dawson, appeals a guilty- plea conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of
26 U.S.C. § 5861(d).
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Advancing sentencing issues, Dawson contends that the trial court erred in denying a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility and in
giving him a two-level upward adjustment. This court is precluded from reviewing
these issues as Dawson expressly waived them in his written guilty plea.1 We therefore DISMISS the appeal as to those claims.
Dawson also maintains that the district court abused its discretion in imposing
a three-month upward departure from the sentencing guideline range. We review an
upward departure for abuse of discretion. 2 There is no abuse of discretion if the judge provides acceptable reasons for departure and the degree of departure is reasonable.3 In Dawson’s case, the trial court articulated that any one of six factors
justified upward departure. From the facts to which Dawson agreed in the factual basis, a three-month departure is not unreasonable.4 Accordingly, the judgment of
the district court as to this claim is AFFIRMED. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
1 United States v. Portillo,
18 F.3d 290(5th Cir. 1994). 2 United States v. Ashburn,
38 F.3d 803(5th Cir. 1994). 3 United States v. Clements,
73 F.3d 1330(5th Cir. 1996). 4 Cf. Ashburn,
38 F.3d at 807(affirming sentence almost twice guideline range). 2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished