Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10281/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10281-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lezli Owens
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10281

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEZLI OWENS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-214-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lezli Owens appeals the 240-month sentence imposed following her 

guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(C). Owens first challenges the imposition of a two-level importation 

enhancement but acknowledges that her argument is foreclosed by United 

States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2014). Although she states in her 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10281 Document: 00513808338 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2016
No. 16-10281

2

brief that she seeks to have us revisit Foulks en banc, she has not filed a 

petition for an en banc hearing. See FED. R. APP. P. 35(c). We must follow 

Foulks “absent an intervening change in the law, such as by a statutory 

amendment, or the Supreme Court, or our en banc court.” Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug 

Intelligence Cntr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008).

In light of Foulks, whether Owens was involved in the importation of the 

methamphetamine is not relevant to the applicability of the enhancement. See 

Foulks, 747 F.3d at 915. The fact that the methamphetamine was imported 

was enough to warrant the enhancement. Because the district court found that 

the methamphetamine distributed by Owens was imported from Mexico, the 

enhancement was properly applied. See id.

Owens also argues that her within-guidelines sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because an analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors 

show that it is “far too high.” We review the substantive reasonableness of a 

sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

Because the district court imposed a within-guidelines sentence, it is 

presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 

337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). The presumption may be rebutted “only upon a 

showing that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive 

significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper 

factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing 

factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

Rather than trying to rebut the reasonableness presumption, Owens has 

identified evidence pertinent to each factor and seeks a different result from 

this court. Because the district court was in a superior position to find facts 

and assess their import under § 3553(a), we will not reweigh the sentencing 

factors or reverse a sentence because we reasonably might find that a different 

 Case: 16-10281 Document: 00513808338 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2016
No. 16-10281

3

sentence is proper. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51-52. Owens has not shown that her 

sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10281 Document: 00513808338 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2016