Case: 20-20423 Document: 00515955542 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 28, 2021
No. 20-20423
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Christopher Jamal Alridge,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-681-1
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Christopher Jamal Alridge appeals the 70-month, within-guidelines
range sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to possession of a firearm as a
felon. On appeal, he challenges the application of the sentence enhancement
under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-20423 Document: 00515955542 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2021
No. 20-20423
The district court did not clearly err by applying the enhancement,
which adds four levels if a defendant “used or possessed any firearm or
ammunition in connection with another felony.” § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); see
United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010). Alridge’s
assertion that “he scooped up the pistol” and that the fight ended moments
later is consistent with the finding in the presentence report that Alridge took
the firearm during the assault. Thus, a finding that Alridge assaulted the
complainant “in the course of committing theft” is plausible in light of the
record as a whole See Sorrells v. State, 343 S.W.3d 152, 155-56 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2011); Tex. Penal Code § 29.01(1).
Additionally, we have held that Guideline § 2K2.1 does not expressly
prohibit the application of both § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) because a firearm was
stolen and § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing a firearm in connection
with another felony offense and that the enhancements do not double count,
impermissibly or otherwise, the same conduct. See United States v. Luna, 165
F.3d 316, 323-24 (5th Cir. 1999); accord United States v. Jimenez-Elvirez, 862
F.3d 527, 541 (5th Cir. 2017). A panel of this court may not overrule the
decision of another panel absent an en banc or superseding Supreme Court
decision. United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 & n.34 (5th Cir. 2002);
see also Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, we continue to reject the assertion that a firearm did not
facilitate another felony offense when there was no separation of time or
conduct between the theft of the firearm and the illegal possession of the
firearm. See United States v. Perez, 585 F.3d 880, 886-87 (5th Cir. 2009).
Alridge’s possession of the stolen firearm had the potential to facilitate the
ongoing robbery. See § 2K2.1, comment. (n.14).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2
United States v. Alridge
Combined Opinion