United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 11, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 04-41318 Clerk
c/w No. 04-41509
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANITRA DESHEA JENKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(3:03-CR-50-ALL)
(6:03-CR-75-ALL)
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this consolidated appeal, Defendant-Appellant Anitra Deshea
Jenkins appeals her guilty plea convictions for being a felon in
possession of a firearm and for bank robbery and possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C. §§
922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (c)(1)(A)(ii), (B)(i)&(ii); 2113(a) & (d).
Jenkins argues that the district court erred in assigning a
career offender enhancement based upon two prior convictions for
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Jenkins contends that
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
these convictions were part of a common scheme and should have been
counted as separate offenses.
We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the
Guidelines, and more specifically, that court’s determination
whether prior sentences were part of a common scheme. United
States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005); United
States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir. 1999).
The record reflects that Jenkins’s assault on a woman at a gas
station during the second aggravated assault was inconsistent with
Jenkins’s common scheme to reunite with her girlfriend.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining that the
two prior convictions were unrelated and that Jenkins qualified as
a career offender. See Robinson, 187 F.3d at 519-20.
Jenkins also argues that the district court’s application of
the career offender enhancement violates United States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). She concedes that her argument is reviewed
for plain error. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 311 (5th
Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005)(No. 04-9517).
The district court’s determination of career offender status
does not implicate Booker. United States v. Guevara, 408 F.3d 252,
261 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Jenkins fails to demonstrate
error, plain or otherwise.
AFFIRMED.
2