[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13082

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

IRA D. ALSTON, 

a.k.a. Boss Bundles, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cr-00045-MCR-1

USCA11 Case: 22-13082 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13082

____________________

Before WILSON, NEWSON, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ira Alston appeals his 120-month sentence for conspiracy to 

distribute controlled substances and for conspiracy to use a communication device to facilitate a felony drug trafficking crime. He 

argues that the district court erred in calculating his advisory guideline range. Specifically, he contends that the district court should 

not have applied a four-level leadership role enhancement because 

he was merely a middleman or seller.

I.

The sentencing guidelines prescribe a four-level enhancement for a defendant who was an organizer or leader of a criminal 

activity that involved five or more participants. U.S.S.G. 

§ 3B1.1(a). 

We review a district court’s legal interpretation of the sentencing guidelines and its application of the guidelines to the facts

de novo. United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 892 (11th Cir. 2014). 

We review a district court’s findings of fact for a sentencing enhancement under a clear error standard. United States v. Ghertler, 

605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010).

In criminal cases, any errors that do “not affect substantial 

rights must be disregarded.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). If a district 

court states that its sentence would be the same with a different 

guideline calculation, we assume there was an error, calculate the 

USCA11 Case: 22-13082 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 2 of 5
22-13082 Opinion of the Court 3

guideline range without the error, and analyze whether the sentence would be substantively reasonable under that guideline 

range. See United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1348–50 (11th Cir. 

2006). If the sentence would be reasonable, any error in the guideline calculation was harmless, and we will not address the disputed 

calculation. Id. at 1350.

We consider the “substantive reasonableness of the sentence 

imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard,” taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

II.

On appeal, Alston argues that the district court erred by imposing a four-level leadership role enhancement because he was 

merely a middleman or seller. We decline to review Alston’s challenge to the district court’s leadership role enhancement because, 

if there was any error, it was harmless. 

At Alston’s sentencing hearing, the district judge stated that 

she would impose the same sentence even if she did not apply the 

enhancement: “I would impose the same sentence regardless of the 

4-level [leadership role] increase. I could not, as I said, in good conscience go below the 120 months in this case for the reasons 

stated.” 

Because the district court would have imposed the same sentence even without the enhancement, under our case law, we will 

assume there was an error, calculate the guideline range without 

the error, and then analyze whether the sentence would be 

USCA11 Case: 22-13082 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13082

substantively reasonable under that guideline range. Keene, 470 

F.3d at 1348–50. 

Here, Alston received a base level offense of 38 based on the 

drug weight. The district court arrived at a guideline range of 262 

to 327 months. However, due to Alston’s lack of criminal history, 

the lack of guns or violence in the instant case, and his acceptance 

of responsibility and substantial assistance to the government, the 

court found that a downward variance from the guideline range

was justified. Thus, the court imposed a 120 month-sentence.

Without the leadership role enhancement, Alston argues—

and the government does not dispute—he would have been eligible for a two-level reduction under the “safety-valve provision” of 

the sentencing guidelines.1 Accordingly, without the four-level

leadership role enhancement, and with the two-level reduction, Alston’s base offense level would have been 32 with a guideline range 

of 135 to 168 months. We find that Alston’s 120-month sentence is

substantively reasonable even under this assumed, lower guideline 

range. 

In support of its sentencing determination, the district court 

emphasized the “staggering” drug weight in this case, the dangerous nature of the drugs (heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamine), 

and the impact these drugs have on the community. The district 

court noted the need to punish Alston for the offense, deter others

1 The safety-valve provision provides that, if the defendant meets certain criteria, his base level offense is decreased by two levels. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(18).

USCA11 Case: 22-13082 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 4 of 5
22-13082 Opinion of the Court 5

from similar criminal conduct, recognize the sentences that have 

been imposed in similar cases, promote respect for the law, and 

protect the community. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the 120-month sentence imposed by the district court was

substantively reasonable. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

We conclude that if there was any misapplication of the 

leadership role enhancement, the error was harmless because the 

district court would have imposed the same sentence even without 

the enhancement, and the sentence was reasonable. Keene, 470 

F.3d at 1350. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-13082 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 5 of 5