Case: 20-11263 Document: 00516185826 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 31, 2022
No. 20-11263
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Michael Don Billups,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:19-CR-133-1
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Michael Don Billups appeals the life prison sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction for interstate transportation of a minor
with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2423(a). We affirm.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-11263 Document: 00516185826 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2022
No. 20-11263
First, Billups contends for the first time on appeal that the district
court erroneously enhanced his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(5). To
show plain error, Billups must establish a forfeited error that is clear or
obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion
to correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.
Given the unequivocal statements by the district court when imposing
Billups’s sentence, even if there was clear or obvious error as to the
application of § 2G1.3(b)(5)’s enhancement, Billups is unable to sustain his
burden of showing that any error affected his substantial rights. See Puckett,
556 U.S. at 135; see also United States v. Molina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1345
(2016); United States v. Johnson, 943 F.3d 735, 738 (5th Cir. 2019).
Therefore, we reject the contention that the district court plainly erred in
applying § 2G1.3’s adjustment.
Billups next challenges the sufficiency of the factual basis as to the
intent element of § 2423(a). Billups did not raise this issue in the district
court, and as he acknowledges, he cannot show that the purported error was
clear or obvious under existing precedent. See Sealed Appellee v. Sealed
Appellant, 825 F.3d 247, 251 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d
146, 152 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2