UNITED STATES v. SONNIER (2020)

Yancy Todd Sonnier pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He now challenges the calculation of his advisory guidelines range, contending that the district erred in adding two criminal history points pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) based on its determination that he committed relevant conduct while under a state parole sentence. We affirm.

In light of the unrebutted facts in the presentence report, Sonnier fails to demonstrate that the district court clearly or obviously erred in determining that his conduct on March 13, 2017 was relevant conduct with respect to his offense of conviction or that he was subject to a sentence of parole at that time. See United States v. Barfield, 941 F.3d 757, 761-63 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1282, 206 L.Ed.2d 264 (2020). We are not persuaded that United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 2009), and United States v. Wall, 180 F.3d 641, 644 (5th Cir. 1999), compel a different conclusion. Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying § 4A1.1(d). See § 4A1.1, comment. (n.4).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.