United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 21, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30372
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WALTER HOWARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Howard appeals the 120-month sentence he received
after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 922(g). He contends that
the sentence is unreasonable. Specifically, Howard argues that
he was incorrectly assessed an enhancement under the Armed Career
Criminal Act (ACCA) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4 when the Government
failed to give notice that it intended to seek such an enhanced
sentence.
No. 05-30372
-2-
Howard cites no authority, Fifth Circuit or otherwise,
supporting his contention that the notice he received was
inadequate. He was not entitled to any formal notice of the
possibility of an enhanced sentence under the ACCA other than
that required by due process. See § 924(e); § 4B1.4, comment.;
cf. United States v. O’Neal, 180 F.3d 115, 125-26 (4th Cir. 1999)
(stating that “[t]here is no requirement that the government
list, either in the indictment or in some formal notice, the
predicate convictions on which it will rely for a section 924(e)
enhancement” but requiring notice sufficient to satisfy due-
process concerns) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Howard received adequate notice of the Government’s intent
to seek an enhanced sentence under the ACCA through the PSR, to
which he objected in writing and at sentencing. Howard’s
argument that he received inadequate notice is therefore
unavailing, and he has waived by failing to brief any argument
otherwise challenging the correctness of the enhancement or the
calculation of the guidelines.
Because the guidelines range was correctly calculated in the
instant case, a sentence imposed within that range would have
been presumptively reasonable. United States v. Alonzo, ___ F.3d
___, No. 05-20130, 2006 WL 39119 at *3 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2006).
That being so, Howard cannot be heard to complain that the 120-
month sentence imposed, which was below the correctly calculated
No. 05-30372
-3-
guidelines range and based on the district court’s specific
statement that the sentence should not exceed the 10-year maximum
it advised him of at rearraignment, was unreasonable.1 See id.;
see also United States v. Hardin, ___ F.3d ___, No. 05-50312,
2006 WL 162552 at **5-6 (5th Cir. Jan. 23, 2006). Accordingly,
the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
1
The Government does not challenge the reasonableness of
downward departure in Howard’s favor.