The opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-40899
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FREDRICK QURAN BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(1:95-CR-78-2)
_________________________________________________________________
July 1, 1997
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Fredrick Quran Brown appeals his guilty-plea conviction and
sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine,
contending that the district court erred by denying his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea and by increasing his base offense level
for possession of a firearm. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
Brown’s motion to withdraw his plea was entered prior to
sentencing, eight months after he pleaded guilty and after
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
preparation of the Presentence Investigation Report. The record
does not support Brown’s assertion that , when he entered his
guilty plea, his trial counsel did not properly instruct him on the
plea agreement terms or the effect of the plea process. Nor does
the record support Brown’s assertion that he did not know that the
plea agreement contained an admission that he possessed a weapon
during the commission of the crime charged. In sum, Brown has not
demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in
denying the motion to withdraw his plea. See, e.g., United States
v. Bond, 87 F.3d 695, 701 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v.
Henderson, 72 F.3d 463, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1995).
Regarding Brown’s sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon during a crime
involving the possession of illicit drugs, Brown’s contention that
Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), applies is without
merit. Because the Supreme Court limited Bailey’s holding to
convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and Brown was not convicted
of violating § 924, Bailey is inapposite. See United States v.
Castillo, 77 F.3d 1480, 1499 n.34 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.
Ct. 100 (1996) and 117 S. Ct. 236 (1996). Brown did not present
any evidence demonstrating his lack of knowledge of the shotgun and
that such lack of knowledge would have made it clearly improbable
that the shotgun was not connected with his drug offense. See
United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1040-41 (5th Cir.)
(quoting U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1)), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 264
(1996); United States v. Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 179 (5th Cir. 1996),
- 2 -
cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1097 (1997). The district court did not
clearly err by enhancing Brown’s sentence by two levels. See
United States v. Watson, 966 F.2d 161, 162 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED
- 3 -