United States v. Quinn ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60089
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JERRY LEE QUINN,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:95-CR-83-S-D
- - - - - - - - - -
October 17, 1996
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerry Lee Quinn appeals his jury conviction for being a
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) and the 120-month sentence imposed by the district
court. Quinn argues that there was insufficient evidence to
support his conviction for being a felon in possession of a
firearm. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government, a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the
*
Pursuant to Local 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-60089
- 2 -
evidence presented at the trial established Quinn was guilty of
the firearm offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States
v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910 (5th Cir. 1995); United States
v. Martinez, 975 F.2d 159, 160-61 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
507 U.S. 943 (1993).
Quinn argues that the district court clearly erred in
finding that he obstructed justice and in imposing a two-level
increase in his offense level pursuant to § 3C1.1 of the
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Because Quinn did not present any
rebuttal evidence to refute the facts set forth in the
Presentence Report (PSR) concerning the obstruction of justice
enhancement, the district court did not clearly err in adopting
the facts in the PSR and increasing Quinn’s offense level for
obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 of the Guidelines. See
United States v. Sherbak, 950 F.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (5th Cir.
1992).
Quinn argues that the district court clearly erred in
finding that the firearm was stolen and in increasing his offense
level under § 2K2.1(b)(4) of the Guidelines. Because Quinn did
not present rebuttal evidence to refute the facts in the PSR
concerning whether the firearm was stolen, the district court did
not clearly err in adopting the facts in the PSR and increasing
Quinn’s offense level because the firearm was stolen pursuant to
§ 2K2.1(b)(4) of the Guidelines. See Sherbak, 950 F.2d at 1099-
1100.
No. 96-60089
- 3 -
AFFIRMED.