IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31461
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SEAN C. KEATING,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CR-50033-ALL
May 29, 2001
Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sean C. Keating appeals the sentence he received after he
pleaded guilty to failing to pay a past due child support
obligation for more than two years in an amount in excess of
$10,000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3). Keating’s argument
that the district court erred when it used the enhancement
provision for minimal planning set forth in U.S.S.G. §
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
2B1.1(b)(4)(A) lacks merit. Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.5(a) & (b)(1),
the reference in section 2J1.1, n.2 to Ҥ 2B1.1 (Larceny,
Embezzlement, and Other Forms of Theft)” must be taken as including
the entire section 2B1.1 guideline, including section
2B1.1(b)(4)(A). Section 1B1.5(b)(2) does not apply because the
2J1.1 reference is not merely “[a]n instruction to use a particular
subsection or table from another offense guideline.”
Although all failure-to-pay-child-support cases will involve
moving out of state and an accumulation of unpaid obligations,
Keating not only did not pay child support for more than four
years, but further, as the PSR also recited, “constantly moved
about, and . . . was usually paid cash by his employers in an
effort to conceal his whereabouts and to avoid garnishment of his
wages.” There was no challenge to these factual recitals. Thus,
the district court did not err when it enhanced Keating’s sentence.
United States v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374, 384 (5th Cir. 1999), cert.
Denied, 528 U.S. 1163 (2000).
AFFIRMED
2