United States v. Cummings ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-30181
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    RONNY OSBIN CUMMINGS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 95-CR-45D
    - - - - - - - - - -
    December 18, 1996
    Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Ronny Osbin Cummings appeals from his conviction and
    sentence for carjacking in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2119
    .    He
    argues that his conviction is unconstitutional because it is
    based upon an insufficient nexus with interstate commerce, that
    he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the district
    court’s assessment of a two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G.
    § 2B3.1(b)(1)(B) violated principles of double jeopardy, and that
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-30181
    - 2 -
    the district court erred by increasing his offense level by two
    pursuant to § 3A1.1 because his victim was unusually vulnerable.
    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.   The
    factual resume provides that the vehicle had moved in interstate
    commerce, and Cummings does not challenge the sufficiency of the
    factual resume on appeal.   The district court did not err by
    increasing Cummings’ offense level pursuant to § 2B3.1(b)(1)(B).
    See United States v. Hawkins, 
    87 F.3d 722
    , 724-28 (5th Cir.
    1996).   Neither did the district court err by increasing
    Cummings’ offense level by two pursuant to § 3A1.1 because his
    victim was unusually vulnerable.    See United States v. Kuban, 
    94 F.3d 971
    , 975 (5th Cir. 1996).   Finally, the court declines to
    address Cummings’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
    although without prejudice to Cummings’ right to raise the issue
    in a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion.    Accordingly, the judgment of the
    district court is AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-30181

Filed Date: 1/6/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014