IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-30181
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONNY OSBIN CUMMINGS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 95-CR-45D
- - - - - - - - - -
December 18, 1996
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronny Osbin Cummings appeals from his conviction and
sentence for carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119. He
argues that his conviction is unconstitutional because it is
based upon an insufficient nexus with interstate commerce, that
he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the district
court’s assessment of a two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2B3.1(b)(1)(B) violated principles of double jeopardy, and that
*
Pursuant to Local 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-30181
- 2 -
the district court erred by increasing his offense level by two
pursuant to § 3A1.1 because his victim was unusually vulnerable.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The
factual resume provides that the vehicle had moved in interstate
commerce, and Cummings does not challenge the sufficiency of the
factual resume on appeal. The district court did not err by
increasing Cummings’ offense level pursuant to § 2B3.1(b)(1)(B).
See United States v. Hawkins, 87 F.3d 722, 724-28 (5th Cir.
1996). Neither did the district court err by increasing
Cummings’ offense level by two pursuant to § 3A1.1 because his
victim was unusually vulnerable. See United States v. Kuban, 94
F.3d 971, 975 (5th Cir. 1996). Finally, the court declines to
address Cummings’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
although without prejudice to Cummings’ right to raise the issue
in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.