UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brandon Danielle COLLIER, also known as Brandon Daniel Collier, Defendant-Appellant, 603 F. App'x 339

PER CURIAM: Brandon Danielle Collier appeals the 77-month sentence imposed on his guilty plea conviction for possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). We affirm. Reviewing for plain error, we reject the contention that the base offense level was assigned erroneously because the district court ignored Descamps v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), and impermissibly considered state court documents to find that Collier had a prior Texas conviction for a controlled substance offense. See Puckett v.

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). Collier’s arguments, if not foreclosed, are at least subject to reasonable dispute. See United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 459 (5th Cir.2014), petition for cert. filed (Dec. 15, 2014) (No. 14-7593). A claim subject to reasonable dispute cannot succeed on plain error review. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423; United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 377-78 (5th Cir.2009).

Reviewing for plain error, we reject also the contention that the district court reversibly erred by not reducing Collier’s federal sentence to account for time spent in state pretrial custody before the state sentence is imposed. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423. The Sentencing Guidelines do not authorize a district court to grant such a reduction. United States v. Looney, No. 14-10203, — Fed.Appx. -, 2015 WL 1534358 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2015) (unpublished); see Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n. 7 (5th Cir.2006).

In light of Looney, whether the district court committed clear and obvious error is at least subject to reasonable dispute, and thus Collier has not shown plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423; Ellis, 564 F.3d at 377-78. AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.