United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30910
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LERON MICHAEL ALEXANDER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:03-CR-00279-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leron Michael Alexander appeals from his conviction of three
counts of bank robbery, one count of carjacking, and four counts of
using, carrying, or brandishing a firearm during a crime of
violence. Alexander contends that the two firearm charges arising
from the June 18, 2001, carjacking and bank robbery he committed
should have resulted in one firearm sentence under 18 U.S.C. §
924(c) because the predicate offenses were grouped under the
Sentencing Guidelines and because the carjacking and bank robbery
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-30910
-2-
occurred nearly simultaneously. He also argues that the district
court erred by adjusting his guideline sentencing level as to one
of his bank robberies because one of his victims was a vulnerable
victim.
The evidence showed that Alexander brandished a firearm when
he committed his carjacking offense, then again when he robbed the
bank. Therefore, Alexander used a firearm twice to commit two
different predicate offenses, carjacking and bank robbery. There
were thus two units of prosecution, see United States v. Phipps,
319 F.3d 177, 186 (5th Cir. 2003), and § 924(c) authorized separate
convictions and sentences. See id.
We need not address whether the vulnerable victim adjustment
was erroneous. Without the adjustment, Alexander’s combined
offense level for his multiple offenses would have remained 28, see
U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4(a), and his total offense level would have
remained the same. Any error regarding the vulnerable victim
adjustment is thus harmless. See United States v. Sidhu, 130 F.3d
644, 652 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.