IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41203
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JIMMIE C. BALLARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:98-CR-117-ALL
--------------------
June 14, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jimmie Ballard pleaded guilty to check fraud and to being
a felon in possession of a firearm. He appeals the district
court’s refusal to grant him an offense level reduction pursuant to
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(2), which allows a reduction
when the defendant’s possession of the firearms is solely for
sporting or collection purposes. Ballard argues that the district
court erred when it stated that Ballard had denied owning handguns
at the guilty-plea hearing; that the probation officer gave
inconsistent reasons for denying the reduction, and his
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 99-41203
-2-
recommendation was thus unreliable; and that the district court did
not consider all the evidence and Ballard’s arguments and did not
articulate its reasons when denying the objection.
Our review of the record reveals that the district court
considered the evidence and Ballard’s argument when making its
§ 2K2.1(b)(2) determination and that the district court articulated
its reasons for denying the sentencing reduction. See United
States v. Melton, 930 F.2d 1096, 1099 (5th Cir. 1991). The
probation officer’s recommendation in his Second Addendum to the
Presentence Report was supported by the record, and it provided
sufficient indicia of reliability such that the district court’s
denial of the § 2K2.1(b)(2) reduction was not clearly erroneous.
See United States v. Brown, 54 F.3d 234, 242 (5th Cir. 1995);
United States v. Shell, 972 F.2d 548, 552-53 (5th Cir. 1992).
Ballard’s challenges to the district court’s findings are without
merit.
Ballard also notes that there was a stipulation by the
Government and Ballard in the plea agreement that he possessed the
firearms for collection purposes, and he argues in his reply brief
that the Government breached the plea agreement by introducing
evidence in the district court and by presenting arguments on
appeal indicating another purpose for the possession of the guns.
We need not review whether the Government’s conduct in the district
court violated the plea agreement because Ballard did not raise
this argument until his reply brief. See United States v. Jackson,
50 F.3d 1335, 1340 n.7 (5th Cir. 1995). Nevertheless, this
contention lacks merit. On appeal, the Government simply argues
No. 99-41203
-3-
that the district court’s determination was sufficiently supported
by the record. A review of the plea agreement, which stated that
the stipulation would not be binding on the district court,
indicates that parties intended the stipulation to apply to
arguments presented to the district court and not that the
Government would be prevented from defending the district court’s
decision in this court. The Government has not breached the plea
agreement.
AFFIRMED.