United States v. Hollywood

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 5, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-10277
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRANDON M. HOLLYWOOD, also known as Swap,
also known as Earl,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CR-78-13-N
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Brandon M. Hollywood appeals his guilty plea conviction and
sentence for aiding and abetting the distribution of and
distributing less than five grams of crack cocaine in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Hollywood contends that the district court erred when it
denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. “[A] district
court may, in its discretion, permit withdrawal [of a guilty
plea] before sentencing if the defendant can show a ‘fair and

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-10277
-2-
just reason.’” United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th
Cir. 2003) (citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d)(2)); see also United
States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984). The
district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Hollywood’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See Powell, 354
F.3d at 370.
Further, Hollywood contends that the district court erred in
determining the quantity of drugs attributable to him as relevant
conduct. He also contends that the district court erred when it
increased his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a weapon in connection with a
drug-trafficking offense. Hollywood’s sentence was not
determined based on the drug quantity calculation or the two-
level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Instead,
Hollywood’s sentence was determined based on his status as a
career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Therefore, these
arguments are irrelevant.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --