U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2026

United States v. Walker

United States v. Walker
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided March 10, 2026
United States v. Walker

Opinion

Case: 25-20061 Document: 85-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED March 10, 2026 No. 25-20061 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Cedric Tyrone Walker, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CR-42-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * A jury convicted Cedric Walker of assaulting a federal officer and inflicting bodily injury under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b). He was sentenced to 97 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He appeals his sentence, contending that the district court committed a signif- icant procedural error by selecting the applicable guideline provision, and determining the sentence, based on a mistaken assumption about the findings _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-20061 Document: 85-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2026

No. 25-20061 in the presentence report (“PSR”).

The district court adopted the PSR’s guidelines calculations and fac- tual findings, applied the same guideline provision as in the PSR, and found that the trial evidence supported the PSR’s application of U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 to the facts. The determination that Walker caused the officer’s injuries is plausible based on the record. See United States v. Williams, 520 F.3d 414, 422 (5th Cir. 2008). In sum, we hold that the district court did not commit a significant procedural error, so we do not reach the parties’ arguments on harmlessness. See United States v. Longoria, 958 F.3d 372, 375 n.1 (5th Cir. 2020).

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.