IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-50152
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JIMMY MAC HAGGARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-94-CR-9-2
- - - - - - - - - -
August 22, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jimmy Mac Haggard argues that the district court improperly
applied the sentencing guidelines by holding him accountable for
participants who were not foreseeable to him at the inception of
the conspiracy. Haggard is very specific in arguing that his
appeal does not involve a dispute with the district court's
factual findings, but is limited to whether "the district court
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-50152
-2-
misapplied the leadership role adjustment of Sentencing
Guidelines § 3B1.1(a) and the foreseeability limitation of
Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.3(a)." This court conducts a de novo
review of the sentencing court's application of the guidelines.
United States v. Gross, 26 F.3d 552, 554 (5th Cir. 1994).
Haggard's argument is that § 1B1.3(a) provides that the
offense level must be determined based on the conduct relevant to
the offense and that for jointly undertaken criminal activity
only those acts that are reasonably foreseeable are relevant.
Although this is a correct reading of § 1B1.3(a)(1), it does not
go far enough. Section 1B1.3(a)(1) provides that all acts of the
defendant and all reasonably foreseeable acts taken in
furtherance of jointly undertaken criminal activity "that
occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in
preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to
avoid detection or responsibility of that offense" are to be
included in relevant conduct. Although the participation of the
other parties was not foreseeable at the inception of the
conspiracy to escape, they participated in the escape and Haggard
knew they of their participation. Haggard has not argued
otherwise. The district court did not err in holding Haggard
responsible for a leadership role in the offense.
AFFIRMED.