United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 31, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30258
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFF M. JEFFERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:02-CR-109-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeff M. Jeffers appeals his convictions and sentences for
possession of an unregistered firearm with a barrel length of less
than 18 inches, possession of a substance containing a detectable
quantity of amphetamine, and possession with intent to distribute
a substance containing cocaine. He argues that the district court
erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized from
his residence because the affidavit used to obtain the search
warrant was a “bare bones” affidavit. Because Jeffers did not
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-30258
-2-
raise this argument in the district court, review of this issue is
limited to plain error. See United States v. Maldonado, 42 F.3d
906, 912 (5th Cir. 1995). To establish plain error, Jeffers must
show: (1) there is an error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and
(3) that affects his substantial rights. See United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, ___ S.
Ct. ___ (Oct. 3, 2005) (No. 04-9517). If these factors are
established, the court may correct the error in its discretion if
the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings. Maldonado, 42 F.3d at 913.
Jeffers has not shown that the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress evidence was reversible plain error. The
affidavit submitted to obtain the search warrant was not a “bare
bones” one as it contained information indicating that the
confidential informant had previously provided reliable information
that led to arrests and seizures of illegal narcotics, the
informant had personally observed cocaine and ecstacy in Jeffers’s
residence, and the informant had personally observed Jeffers sell
ecstacy pills for $20 each at Jeffers’s residence. The affidavit
provided specific information indicating the informant was reliable
and credible, and the affidavit was based on the informant’s
personal knowledge from which the judge could determine that
probable cause existed. See United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403,
407-08 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317,
320-21 (5th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the officers executing the
No. 05-30258
-3-
warrant had a good-faith basis for relying on the search warrant.
See Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407-08; Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 321.
Jeffers also argues that the district court’s imposition of
his sentence under the mandatory United States Sentencing
Guidelines held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, 125
U.S. 738 (2005), was reversible plain error. Because he did not
raise this issue in the district court, review is limited to plain
error. See Maldonado, 42 F.3d at 912. Following Booker, the
imposition of a sentence under the mandatory Guidelines was error
that was both plain and obvious. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 520-21.
However, Jeffers cannot show that the error affected his
substantial rights because the district court sentenced him to 36
months of imprisonment within the applicable guideline range, and
nothing in the sentencing transcript indicates that the district
court would have imposed a lesser sentence if it had known that the
Guidelines were not mandatory. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo,
411 F.3d 597, 600-01 (5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, Jeffers has not
shown that the imposition of his sentence under the mandatory
Guidelines was reversible plain error. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 520-
21.
AFFIRMED.