United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 25, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-31228
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MERRICK M. HINES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:04-CR-50105-01
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Merrick M. Hines appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that
the district court erred in departing upward in sentencing him
based on his police arrest record and incident report records.
After United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), this court
reviews sentences for reasonableness. United States v. Smith,
417 F.3d 483, 491-92 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court based
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-31228
-2-
its decision to depart upward on Hines’s similar criminal
convictions involving the use of a firearm, a juvenile negligent
homicide, an old cocaine possession, accessory to murder for
which the punishment was too lenient, and Hines’s other criminal
conduct demonstrating a consistent pattern of criminal behavior.
The district court also determined that Hines’s criminal history
category substantially underrepresented the seriousness of his
criminal history and that his criminal history establishes a
likelihood that he will commit other crimes in the future. The
district court considered the policy statement in U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.3 and the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The sentence
imposed was reasonable for the reasons given by the district
court at the sentencing hearing. See Smith, 417 F.3d at 489.
There is nothing in the record to show that the district court
would have imposed a lesser sentence under an advisory guidelines
scheme. See id. Therefore, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.