USA v. McConnell, No. 06-30487 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 7, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-30487 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHN MICHAEL MCCONNELL, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:04-CR-50083-ALL -------------------Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* John Michael McConnell challenges his sentence for misapplication of funds by a bank employee under 18 U.S.C. § 656. Citing our precedent under United States v. Booker,1 McConnell asserts that the district court erred by increasing his sentence based upon facts that were neither proven to a jury nor admitted by him. Because he did not raise the issue for plain error.2 objection below, we review this McConnell must demonstrate (1) an error, * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 1 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 2 See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). No. 06-30487 -2(2) that is plain, and (3) that affects his substantial rights.3 If these conditions are satisfied, we may exercise our discretion to correct integrity, the error or public if it seriously reputation of affects judicial the fairness, proceedings. 4 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court increased McConnell s sentence based upon a factual finding and under the belief that the Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory, so the error is plain.5 However, McConnell has failed to show that the sentencing judge--sentencing under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one--would have reached a significantly different result. 6 McConnell s best evidence is from the sentencing hearing, where the district court remarked: If I sentence you for less than the guidelines, under the present system, [the AUSA] has to report me to the Attorney General. And the Attorney General has to report me to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee and say that Judge Stagg departed downward without legal authority. However, the very same Judge, in denying McConnell s motion for release pending appeal, rejected his Booker arguments, reasoning that there is no indication that McConnell s sentence would have been different under an advisory guidelines scheme as opposed to a 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 See Mares, 402 F.3d at 520-21. 6 Mares, 402 F.3d at 521. No. 06-30487 -3mandatory one. We hold that this most recent statement by the district court is dispositive of the substantial-rights question. This holding follows Smith, where we held that such a statement, made in the context of a district court s denial of a § 2255 motion to vacate, indicated the indisputable message that the court stands by its original sentence, even after Booker. 7 McConnell has failed to show that the error Because affected his substantial rights, he cannot demonstrate that the district court committed plain error.8 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 7 United States v. Smith, 442 F.3d 868, 871 (5th Cir. 2006). 8 See Mares, 402 F.3d at 520-21.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
