# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · July 3, 1997 · 120 F.3d 266

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/12582

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 3, 1997
- **Citations:** 120 F.3d 266; 1997 WL 420232
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/12582

## Opinion text

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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/12582. Public record. Not legal advice.