USA v. Lewis, No. 05-61014 (5th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 22, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-61014 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHNNY L. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:04-CR-32-1 -------------------Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Johnny L. Lewis appeals his sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Lewis argues that the district court effectively imposed a mandatory sentence under the Guidelines. Lewis concedes that the district court did not believe that the Guidelines were binding. Because Lewis was not erroneously sentenced under a mandatory sentencing guideline scheme and because the district court did not consider the Guidelines to be mandatory, Lewis s argument lacks merit. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 05-61014 -2Lewis also contends that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors on the record. He does not challenge the calculation of his guideline sentencing range. Because Lewis s sentence was within the properly calculated guideline range of 10 to 16 months, we infer that the district court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Lewis has failed to demonstrate that his properly calculated guideline sentence was unreasonable. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554; Mares, 402 F.3d at 519. AFFIRMED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.