United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 25, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40993
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
SHANE DONNTA JONES, also known as Picc
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CR-88-1
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shane Donnta Jones was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea
of conspiring to manufacture, distribute, or possess with the
intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense 50 grams or more
of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base and/or 1000
kilograms or more of marijuana and aiding and abetting the same.
See 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. He now appeals.
Jones’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered in
compliance with FED. R. CRIM. P. 11. Jones has not shown that the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-40993
-2-
district court erred in imposing his sentence. The district
court imposed Jones’s sentence in compliance with the
requirements of FED. R. CRIM. P. 32, did not err in calculating
the quantity of drugs attributable to Jones for sentencing
purposes, and did not err by enhancing Jones’s offense level
under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) because Jones possessed a dangerous
weapon during his offense. See United States v. Posada-Rios, 158
F.3d 832, 877-79 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Rogers, 1 F.3d
341, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1993). Finally, Jones has not demonstrated
plain error with regard to his argument, raised for the first
time on appeal, that his sentence is unconstitutional in light of
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Blakely v.
Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004); and United States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The district court’s error in enhancing
Jones’s sentence under the mandatory sentencing regime in effect
at the time after finding facts not admitted by Jones or proven
beyond reasonable doubt does not rise to the level of plain
error. Nothing in the record indicates that the district court
would have imposed a lesser sentence under an advisory sentencing
regime rather than a mandatory one. See United States v.
Infante, ___ F.3d ___, No. 02-50665, 2005 WL 639619, *13 (5th
Cir. Mar. 21, 2005); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-22
(5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed, No. 04-9517 (U.S. Mar.
31, 2005).
Jones’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.