United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 30, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51012
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN STEVEN HAMM,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:05-CR-22-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Steven Hamm appeals his sentence following his
conviction for one charge of being a felon in possession of a
firearm. Hamm argues that the district court erred in
determining that he should be held responsible for eight firearms
and, concomitantly, that his base offense level should be
increased by four levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B).
The district court’s findings on this issue are plausible in
light of the record as a whole. See United States v. Villanueva,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-51012
-2-
408 F.3d 193, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 268
(2005). Consequently, Hamm has not shown that the district
court’s imposition of the disputed adjustment was erroneous. See
id.
Hamm also contends that he was entitled to a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility if this court concludes that he
should not have received the § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) adjustment.
Because we reject Hamm’s argument concerning the § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B)
adjustment, we concomitantly reject his argument concerning
acceptance of responsibility.
Hamm’s final contention is that he should have received an
adjustment to his base offense level under the sporting purposes
exception of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2). Hamm has not carried his
burden of establishing that his possession of a firearm was for
lawful purposes only. See United States v. Shell, 972 F.2d 548,
552 (5th Cir. 1992). Consequently, he likewise has not shown
error, much less plain error, in connection with his argument
that he was entitled to the § 2K2.1(b)(2) reduction. See id.;
see also United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728,
732-33 (5th Cir. 2005).
Hamm has shown no error in the judgment of the district
court. That judgment is thus AFFIRMED.