Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-50054/USCOURTS-ca5-24-50054-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cortez Black
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-50049

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Courtez Rashaud Black, 

Defendant—Appellant, 

consolidated with

_____________

No. 24-50054

_____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Cortez Black,

Defendant—Appellant. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-50054 Document: 56-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2024
2

______________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC Nos. 7:10-CR-197-2, 7:08-CR-60-4

______________________________

Before Richman, Douglas, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Courtez Rashaud Black contests the above-guidelines sentence of 

thirty-six months of imprisonment he received on revocation of his 

supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In 2008, Black was convicted 

of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack 

cocaine under the previous version of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii). 

At the time of his conviction, § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) carried a maximum sentence 

of forty years of imprisonment, making it a Class B felony. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3559(a)(2). In light of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-

220, § 2, 124 Stat. 2372, Black would now only qualify for § 841(b)(1)(C) for 

his offense of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five grams or 

more of crack cocaine, which is a Class C felony because it has a twenty-year 

statutory maximum. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3). 

In calculating Black’s statutory maximum in imposing a revocation 

sentence, the district court classified the underlying offense as a Class B 

felony instead of a Class C felony. Black did not object, and he did not move 

for a reduction of his sentence based on the First Step Act. 

On appeal, Black argues that it was a clear error for the district court 

to not consider the retroactive effect of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 

No. 115-391, § 404(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222, on the felony classification of his 

2008 offense. Because he did not object in the district court, review is for 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-50054 Document: 56-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2024
24-50049

c/w No. 24-50054

3

plain error. United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir. 2012). To 

prevail on plain error review, Black must show (1) an error (2) that is clear or 

obvious and (3) that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he satisfies the first three requirements, we

should remedy the error “if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, 

or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, 

brackets, and citation omitted). 

Black has not cited any controlling decision from us holding that the 

district court must sua sponte consider the First Step Act in imposing a 

revocation sentence. See United States v. Scott, 821 F.3d 562, 570–71 (5th Cir. 

2016). Additionally, it is not “indisputably” evident “from a reading of the 

plain statutory language” of the First Step Act that a district court must sua 

sponte consider the effects of the First Step Act in this context. See Pub. L. 

No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. at 5222; United States v. Maturin, 488 F.3d 657, 

663 (5th Cir. 2007). Finally, Black’s reliance on United States v. Jones, No. 

22-30480, 2023 WL 6458641, at *4 (5th Cir. Oct. 4, 2023) (unpublished), is 

misplaced as he has not shown that the district court here believed “that it 

was required to apply the law as it stood” in 2008 when Black was originally 

convicted. Accordingly, Black has failed to show that the district court 

committed a clear or obvious error. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 24-50054 Document: 56-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/06/2024