United States v. Bennette

05-40130Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit12.12.2005

Gesamter Gesetzestext

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 12, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-40130
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PARIS LYNN BENNETTE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CR-108-ALL
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Paris Lynn Bennette appeals his 162-month sentence following
his guilty-plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute
more than 5 grams but less than 50 grams of cocaine base. He
argues that the district court erred in computing his criminal
history category because it failed to consider certain prior
convictions as “related” under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2. He contends that
the sentences in those cases were consolidated because the
sentences were concurrent.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-40130
-2-
The prior sentences were based on separate convictions in
cases that involved various types of crimes. These crimes involved
independent arrests and were distinguished by different offense
dates and cause numbers. Thus, there is no basis to conclude that
the prior sentences are “related” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2.
See United States v. Garcia, 962 F.2d 479, 482-83 (5th Cir. 1992),
abrogated on other grounds by Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59
(2001); United States v. Velazquez-Overa, 100 F.3d 418, 423-24 (5th
Cir. 1996). Bennette’s argument that Garcia and Velasquez-Overa
were wrongly decided and should be overruled is unavailing. We are
bound by this court’s precedent on the issue. See United States v.
Ramirez-Velasquez, 322 F.3d 868, 876 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly,
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.