United States v. McDonald

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-60791
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDDIE LEE MCDONALD,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:03-CR-4-3
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eddie Lee McDonald (“McDonald”) appeals the sentence imposed
following his jury-trial convictions for conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine and
possession with intent to distribute between five and 50 grams of
crack cocaine. McDonald argues that the district court clearly
erred by assessing a two-level enhancement for possession of a
dangerous weapon in connection with drug trafficking offenses
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 22, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-60791
-2-
Because McDonald did not specifically challenge the two-
level enhancement below, we review only for plain error. See
United States v. Burton, 126 F.3d 666, 671 (5th Cir. 1997). A
two-level enhancement should be applied “[i]f a dangerous weapon
(including a firearm) was possessed” during a drug trafficking
offense. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The presentence report showed that a
search of McDonald’s Ingalls Avenue apartment uncovered a firearm
under McDonald’s bed in close proximity to a small amount of
marijuana. A search of McDonald’s Jefferson Street residence
uncovered three additional firearms. Testimony at McDonald’s
trial indicated that he left his Ingalls Avenue apartment
carrying a paper bag containing three cookies of crack cocaine on
the night he was arrested. McDonald did not challenge any of
this evidence at sentencing. The district court did not plainly
err by assessing the enhancement. See United States v. Castillo,
77 F.3d 1480, 1498-99 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --