IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40175
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN HAROLD MILANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-97-CV-234-1
__________________________________________
June 7, 1999
Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Harold Milano appeals the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to possession
with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of § 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). Milano
argues that the district court erred when it sentenced him based on carrying cocaine because he
had no knowledge or intent to possess cocaine. To the extent that Milano raises a constitutional
claim, it is reviewed for plain error because he made no argument in
the district court that his sentence was unconstitutional. See United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d
947, 950 (5th Cir. 1994).
To demonstrate plain error, Milano must show clear or obvious error that affects his
substantial rights; if he does, this court has discretion to correct a forfeited error that seriously
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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.
affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings but is not required to do
so. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc) (citing United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-35 (1993)).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and conclude that the district court’s
sentence, which included cocaine, was not error, plain or otherwise. See United States v.
Valencia-Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 1999 WL 198889, *1 (5th Cir. April 9, 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2