United States v. Kareem McKinnon

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 9, 2019
• Docket: 17-30367
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 17-30367 Document: 00515026691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2019

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

No. 17-30367 FILED Summary Calendar July 9, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KAREEM MCKINNON, also known as Kareem Olajuwon McKinnon,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:15-CR-172-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kareem McKinnon was convicted of one charge of conspiring to distribute cocaine and sentenced to serve 96 months in prison and a four-year term of supervised release. Now, he argues that the district court clearly erred by finding that he was a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy and imposing a corresponding three-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b).

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-30367 Document: 00515026691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2019

No. 17-30367

Because he objected to the disputed adjustment, review is for clear error. See United States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163, 173 (5th Cir. 2002). A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible when viewed in context of the entire record. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Review of the record shows that McKinnon exercised control over the pecuniary assets of the organization, directed another member of the conspiracy to safeguard these assets, and also directed this individual as to how she should behave while transporting assets of the organization. Accordingly, the record shows that the district court did not clearly err by imposing the disputed adjustment. See United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 756 F.3d 422, 435 (5th Cir. 2014); See United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 345 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). AFFIRMED.