IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50402
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REGINALD DWAIN HART,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-01-CR-96-ALL
--------------------
December 11, 2002
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reginald Dwain Hart pleaded guilty to count 1 of an
indictment charging him with distribution of crack cocaine. Hart
has appealed his sentence. Hart contends that the district court
erred in determining that he is a “career offender” under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because Hart had previously been convicted for
at least two prior controlled substance felony offenses. Hart
contends that the prior convictions were related because they
were consolidated for trial and for sentencing. See 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 02-50402
-2-
§ 4A1.2, comment. (n.3.). Hart concedes that this court held to
the contrary in United States v. Garcia, 962 F.2d 479, 482-83
(5th Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds, Buford v. United
States, 532 U.S. 59, 63-66 (2001), and United States v. Ford, 996
F.2d 83, 85-86 (5th Cir. 1993). Hart contends that Garcia and
Ford should be re-examined in light of Vallez v. State, 21 S.W.3d
778, 783 (Tex. App. 2000)).
Because this question was not raised in the district court,
we review it for plain error. See United States v. Deville, 278
F.3d 500, 509-10 (5th Cir. 2002). Under FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b),
this court may correct forfeited errors only when the appellant
shows the following factors: (1) there is an error, (2) that is
clear or obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial rights.
United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)
(en banc). Because Hart’s argument was rejected by this court in
Garcia and Ford, Hart cannot show that the district court
committed a clear or obvious error. See United States v.
Webster, 162 F.3d 308, 358 (5th Cir. 1998). The judgment is
AFFIRMED.