Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10550/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10550-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Drayon Conley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10550

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DRAYON CONLEY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

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

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Drayon Conley appeals the 96-month, above-guidelines prison sentence 

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a 

firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). We affirm.

Reviewing for plain error, we reject Conley’s argument that his base 

offense level was assigned erroneously because the district court ignored 

Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), and impermissibly 

 

* 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

March 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10550 Document: 00513435743 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2016
No. 15-10550

2

considered state court documents and the definition of deliver set forth in 

Texas Health & Safety Code Annotated § 481.002(8) to find that his prior 

conviction under Texas Health & Safety Code Annotated § 481.112(a) 

constituted a controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). See 

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Conley’s arguments, if not 

foreclosed, are unsettled and at least subject to reasonable dispute. See United 

States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 459 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 

1892 (2015). A claim subject to reasonable dispute cannot succeed on plain 

error review. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Phea, 755 F.3d 255, 

263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 416 (2014).

Next, reviewing for abuse of discretion, we reject Conley’s argument that 

his 96-month prison sentence is substantively unreasonable. It was 

permissible for the district court to consider that Conley had previously 

received lenient sentences in making its sentencing determination. See United 

States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 328-29 (5th Cir. 2004). The district court’s 

imposition of an above-guidelines sentence based on Conley’s lengthy criminal 

history and the lenient sentences he previously received was not unreasonable. 

See id.; United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Furthermore, the amount of the variance, 25 months above the top of the 

guidelines range, was not unreasonable. See United States v. McElwee, 646 

F.3d 328, 345 (5th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases). Conley has not shown that the 

district court abused its discretion in selecting a 96-month sentence. See Gall 

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 

708-09 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10550 Document: 00513435743 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2016