Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Christopher DAVIDSON, Defendant—Appellant.
In this case, Christopher Davidson pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. During the same rearraignment hearing, he pleaded guilty to three counts of a separate indictment: one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine and two counts of distribution of five grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The district court grouped all four counts in calculating his offense level, and he was sentenced on all the counts at the same sentencing hearing.
Davidson argues that the district court erred by grouping his firearm offense with his drug offenses. Because he did not object to the grouping in the district court, plain error review applies. See United States v. Izaguirre, 973 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2020). Davidson's firearm possession in this case was a specific offense characteristic of his drug offenses, as he received the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) based on his firearm possession. We have affirmed the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement in Davidson's appeal in No. 20-50579.
As we noted in that appeal, Davidson possessed the firearm near drug paraphernalia in his backpack within the time frame of his drug conspiracy and less than a week after his two distribution offenses. Because Davidson's firearm possession was a specific offense characteristic of his drug offenses, the grouping of his firearm and drug offenses was not plainly erroneous. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c); United States v. Segler, 37 F.3d 1131, 1135 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Le, 512 F.3d 128, 134 (5th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that we may affirm the district court's judgment on any basis supported by the record).
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-50580
Decided: April 20, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)