United States v. Inman ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50681
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GERALD INMAN; MARY DELORES INMAN,
also known as Delores Inman,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-99-CR-83-2
--------------------
May 2, 2002
Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gerald and Delores Inman (G. Inman and D. Inman) appeal
their convictions and sentences for conspiracy, interstate
transportation of stolen motor vehicles, and failure to appear (G.
Inman), and harboring a fugitive (D. Inman). G. Inman argues that
1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, 2)
there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conspiracy
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 01-50681
-2-
conviction, and 3) the district court erred by not making
particularized findings following G. Inman’s objections to the
presentence report ("PSR") on enhancements for specific offense
characteristics and for his role in the offense. D. Inman argues
that 1) venue for her harboring offense was improper in the Western
District of Texas, 2) there was insufficient evidence to support
her harboring conviction, 3) the district court erred in
determining her base offense level and in denying an adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility, 4) her attorney provided ineffective
assistance of counsel, and 5) the district court erred in denying
her motion for release pending appeal.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by
the parties and hold that the evidence adduced at trial was
sufficient to support G. Inman’s conspiracy conviction and
D. Inman’s conviction for harboring a fugitive. See United States
v. Izydore, 167 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v.
Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, the
district court did not err in denying G. Inman’s motion to
suppress, and did not plainly err in declining to make
particularized finding when overruling G. Inman’s objections to the
PSR’s specific-offense-characteristic and role-in-the-offense
enhancements. See United States v. Gonzales, 79 F.3d 413, 419 (5th
Cir. 1996); United States v. Prout, 526 F.2d 380, 387 (5th Cir.
1976); United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994)
(en banc).
No. 01-50681
-3-
Because D. Inman failed to lodge a pretrial objection to
venue and did not request a venue instruction, she waived her
challenge to the district court’s jurisdiction. See United States
v. Carreon-Palacio, 267 F.3d 381, 391-92 & n. 25 (5th Cir. 2001).
Her challenge to the district court’s assessment of her base
offense level, raised on appeal for the first time, does not
survive plain error review. See United States v. Fierro, 38 F.3d
761, 774 (5th Cir. 1994). Similarly, the district court did not
err in denying an acceptance of responsibility reduction. See
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2).
D. Inman’s ineffective assistance of counsel arguments
were not presented to the district court and are premature in any
event, and D. Inman fails to identify portions of the record that
provide substantial details about her attorney’s conduct.
Accordingly, we decline to address those issues on direct appeal.
United States v. Bounds, 943 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1991). Her
argument that the district court erred in denying her motion for
release has previously been presented to, and rejected by, this
court.
AFFIRMED.