Testo completo
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60865
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT INGRAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:99-CR-56-ALL
--------------------
August 22, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Ingram appeals his sentence for possession with
intent to distribute crack cocaine. He argues that his criminal
history category was improperly calculated because the
presentence investigation report did not show that he was
represented by counsel on several misdemeanor convictions.
Because Ingram did not raise this issue in the district court,
review is for plain error. See United States v. Krout, 66 F.3d
1420, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d
160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc).
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 99-60865
-2-
No invalidity of any prior conviction is clear or obvious.
See, e.g., United States v. Follin, 979 F.2d 369, 376 n.7 (5th
Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the district court did not commit plain
error in adopting the criminal history category as set forth in
the presentence investigation report. The judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
