United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 28, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30382
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONNIE J. MINSHEW, also known as Ronnie Minshew,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02:03-CR-319-ALL-1
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronnie J. Minshew appeals his sentence for escape from
custody. See 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). He argues that the district
court erred in departing upward from the guidelines pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 and imposing the statutory maximum sentence of 60
months. He contends that the court should have selected 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
sentence by considering successive increments above the guideline
range. This argument is without merit, as the court’s basis for
its upward departure was lawful and the degree of departure did not
reveal an abuse of discretion. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(1), (2)(A),
(4); see also § 4A1.2, Application Note 8; United States v. Bell,
371 F.3d 239, 243 (5th Cir. 2004), cert. denied (U.S. Oct. 4, 2004)
(No. 04-5954); United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 809-10 (5th
Cir. 1994) (en banc); United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 663-
64 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). The district court expressly stated
“I have considered an intermediate adjustment in arising [sic]
[arriving] at this sentence.” There is no requirement that the
district court “go through a ritualistic exercise in which it
mechanically discusses each criminal history category it rejects en
route to the category that it selects.” Ashburn, 38 F.3d at 809;
see also Lambert, 984 F.2d at 663. The district court had ample
reasons for upward departure in setting Minshew’s sentence,
including repeated convictions for escape, commission of crimes
while incarcerated, and excessive criminal history points for
Category VI. Minshew’s reliance on United States v. Cross, 289
F.3d 476, 4778-79 (7th Cir. 2002), is misplaced. In that case,
unlike the instant case, the court openly abandoned the guidelines
altogether.
Minshew’s argument that the court plainly erred in increasing
his sentencing exposure on the basis of prior convictions that were
2
neither charged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt is foreclosed. Almendarez-Torres v. United
States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-47 (1998); United States v. Dabeit, 231
F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). To the extent that he relies on
Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), his argument is
foreclosed by United States v. Piniero, 377 F.3d 464, 465 (5th Cir.
2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263).
AFFIRMED.
3