United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 22, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-30482
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHEVELL M. HAMILTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:05-CR-50066-1
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Chevell M. Hamilton pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of powder cocaine
(Count 1), conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50
grams or more of crack cocaine (Count 2), and possession of a
firearm in relation to drug trafficking (Count 4). He was
sentenced to 136 months of imprisonment on Counts 1 and 2, to run
concurrently, and to 60 months of imprisonment on Count 4, to run
consecutively to his sentences for Counts 1 and 2.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-30482
-2-
Hamilton argues on appeal that the district court violated
FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(i)(1)(A) and (B), 18 U.S.C. § 3552, and the
Sixth Amendment when it denied his request at sentencing for
additional time to review a new amendment to the presentence
report (PSR) and when it did not provide him with the probation
officer’s sentencing recommendations.
Because Hamilton is raising these issues for the first time
on appeal, they are reviewed for plain error. See United States
v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 443 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2958 (2006).
The district court did not plainly err in failing to provide
Hamilton with the probation officer’s sentencing recommendations
because it was not required to do so. See FED. R. CRIM. P.
32(e)(3); W.D. LA. CR. R. 32.1(F). Furthermore, the district
court did not plainly err in refusing to give Hamilton additional
time to review the information contained in the PSR amendment
because the record indicates that Hamilton was provided with the
information contained in the amendment at the time of the plea
agreement.
AFFIRMED.