IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-31210
(Summary Calendar)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KELVIN M. JONES, also known as Kevin Maurice Jones,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CR-43-ALL-B-M1
- - - - - - - - - -
December 14, 1998
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Kelvin M. Jones, a/k/a Kevin Maurice
Jones, appeals his sentence, which was imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction on three counts of distribution of cocaine
base. Jones argues that the district court erred in failing to
resentence him after it struck information in the presentence
report that attributed an additional amount of cocaine base to him
as relevant conduct. As the amended amount of cocaine base
attributed to Jones did not affect the applicable guideline range,
however, any possible error was harmless.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Jones also contends that the district court erred in
increasing his criminal history score pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§§ 4A1.1(d) and (e). Jones states that he understood his plea
agreement to have prohibited any increase in sentence. But, the
plea agreement contains no such prohibition; rather, it clearly
indicates that Jones’s sentence would be determined according to
applicable sentencing guidelines. His argument has no merit.
Finally, Jones asserts that one of his previous state
convictions used to calculate his criminal history category was
subsequently overturned, insisting that we must remand this case
for resentencing. Although Jones has submitted a document
purporting to support his argument, we cannot consider evidence
that was not first submitted to the district court. See Fed. R.
App. P. 10(a). Without any cognizable supporting evidence, we must
deny Jones’s argument.
AFFIRMED.
2