United States v. Eric Means

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 3, 2020
Docket19-30620
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Eric Means (United States v. Eric Means) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Eric Means, (5th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

Case: 19-30620 Document: 00515372018 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 19-30620 April 3, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ERIC CHARLES MEANS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:18-CR-256-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eric Charles Means was convicted on charges of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. Applying the career-offender enhancement, the district court imposed a sentence of 262 months on the drug count and a consecutive sentence of 60 months on the firearms count. Means appeals, claiming the 262- month sentence reflects a misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines. “An

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 19-30620 Document: 00515372018 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2020

No. 19-30620

error in applying the guidelines is a significant procedural error that constitutes an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Moody, 564 F.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review a district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo. Id. Means contends that under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(e), the district court was required to reduce his 262-month sentence on the drug count by 60 months to offset his sentence on the firearms count. We find no basis for this claim. The district court identified a guidelines range of 262 to 327 months under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(c). In accordance with § 5G1.2(e), the court then determined a total, within-guidelines term of 322 months and apportioned it between the counts of conviction. Means has shown, and we can discern, no error. AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Moody
564 F.3d 754 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Eric Means, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eric-means-ca5-2020.