United States v. Shakur

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 29, 2003
• Docket: 02-50932
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 29, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

No. 02-50932 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KHALEEL NA’IM SHAKUR, also known as Khaleel Shakur,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-02-CR-66-1 --------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DEMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Khaleel Shakur challenges his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for conspiring to make, utter, or possess a counterfeit

security of an organization. He asserts for the first time on

appeal that the factual basis was insufficient to establish that

he had agreed to join a conspiracy. He has not shown that the

district court committed plain error in accepting his guilty

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 02-50932 -2-

plea, as Shakur’s admissions establish the elements of a

conspiracy. See United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206 F.3d 529,

530 (5th Cir. 2000).

Shakur contends, also for the first time on appeal, that

during his rearraignment proceeding the district court violated

FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 in three separate instances. He maintains

that the court did not explain the nature of the charge to him,

in violation of FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(1); did not adequately

explain the effect and operation of supervised release, pursuant

to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(1); and did not ask him whether his

willingness to plead guilty resulted from discussions between his

attorney and the Government, pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d).

He has not established that these omissions constituted plain

error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 122 S. Ct. 1043,

1046 (2002).

Shakur maintains that the district court abused its

discretion in departing upward at sentencing to impose a sentence

of 60 months. The district court concluded that the upward

departure was warranted based upon the underrepresentation of

Shakur’s criminal history and the likelihood that he would commit

more crimes in the future. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, p.s. The

court’s explanation of its reasons for departure includes an

implicit explanation for the rejection of intermediate

categories. See United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th

Cir. 1993)(en banc). The degree of the departure was reasonable. No. 02-50932 -3-

See United States v. Daughenbaugh, 49 F.3d 171, 174-75 (5th Cir.

1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion in

departing upward. See United States v. McKenzie, 991 F.2d 203,

204 (5th Cir. 1993). Consequently, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.