United States v. White

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
October 2, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30196
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES WESLEY WHITE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CR-60035-ALL
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Wesley White appeals from his jury-verdict conviction
for three counts of bank fraud and one count of conspiracy to
commit bank fraud. White has filed a motion seeking leave to
submit a pro se supplemental appeal brief. As there is no right to
hybrid representation in a direct criminal appeal, White’s motion
is DENIED. See United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447, 449 & n.1
(5th Cir. 1999); see also 5TH CIR. R. 28.7.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-30196
-2-
White contends that the district court erred by failing to
make a specific finding that the individuals supervised by White
were criminally responsible participants in the criminal activity
for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The district court was not
required to make such a specific finding. See United States v.
Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216, 220-21 (5th Cir. 1989).
White also argues that the district court erred by applying a
two-level adjustment to his sentence for his role as a supervisor
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) because the individuals he
supervised were not criminally responsible participants in the
criminal activity. Because White failed to raise this argument in
district court, the issue is reviewed only for plain error. See
United States v. Rodriguez, 15 F.3d 408, 414-15 (5th Cir. 1994).
As this issue involves a factual question that was capable of
resolution by the district court, it cannot constitute plain error.
See United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50-51 (5th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --