United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 17, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51451
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JACQUE DESHAWN KING, SR., also known as Jacque Deshawn King,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:05-CR-74-ALL
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jacque Deshawn King, Sr. appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(2). He argues that the district court erred in imposing
a federal sentence to run consecutively to a not-yet-imposed
state sentence. We have held that such a sentence is proper
under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, (p.s.). United
States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1217 (5th Cir. 1991). Therefore,
King’s argument is foreclosed by Brown.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-51451
-2-
King argues that the sentence imposed by the district court
was unreasonable. The sentence imposed by the district court is
accorded “great deference” because it was the Guidelines sentence
imposed pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a). See United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43
(2005). King does not argue that the district court misapplied
the Guidelines or miscalculated the applicable Guideline range.
King’s argument that the consecutive sentence could result in a
sentencing disparity is based on speculation as King has not
shown that his sentence was more severe than similarly-situated
defendants nationwide. See United States v. Duhon, 440 F.3d 711,
721 (5th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. May 18,
2006) (No. 05-11144). King has not shown that the sentence
imposed by the district court was unreasonable. See Mares,
402 F.3d at 519.
AFFIRMED.