United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-50857 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Shannon Wilson, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:22-CR-78-1 

______________________________ 

Before Wiener, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Shannon Wilson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a 

firearm. Because Wilson possessed the firearm in connection with a drugtrafficking offense, the Sentencing Guidelines required the district court to 

sentence him under the Guideline for the drug offense, which it did. Using 

the gross weight of the seized methamphetamine pills, the district court 

_____________________ 

*

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

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

November 6, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-50857 Document: 00516958320 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 22-50857 

2 

sentenced Wilson to 110 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised 

release. 

On appeal, Wilson challenges the district court’s drug-quantity 

calculation. He says that the district court erroneously calculated his 

sentence by using the gross weight of the methamphetamine pills rather than 

estimating the weight of the actual methamphetamine in each pill. We 

disagree and affirm. 

I 

Wilson, known to police as a suspect in several firearms-related 

crimes, was pulled over for driving without a valid driver’s license. During 

the stop, police discovered a loaded 9-millimeter pistol and a large bag of 

orange pills. The bag had 954 whole pills, 33 partial pills, and orange 

powder—totaling 361.93 grams. Laboratory analysis later confirmed that the 

pills contained methamphetamine. 

Wilson was charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of being a 

felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).1

 Because 

he possessed the firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking offense, the 

presentence investigation report (PSR) applied § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing 

Guidelines to calculate his sentence.2

 Using the gross weight of the pills—

361.93 grams—the PSR assigned Wilson a base offense level of 28. See

_____________________ 

1

 The Government did not pursue a drug charge.

2

 Generally, § 2K2.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines applies to § 922(g)(1) felon-inpossession offenses. See U.S.S.G. App. A. But when a defendant uses or possesses the 

firearm in connection with the commission of another offense, a cross-reference to § 2X1.1 

applies “if the resulting offense level is greater than” the one appliable under § 2k2.1. Id.

§ 2K2.1(c)(1)(A). The base offense level under § 2X1.1 is the “base offense level from the 

guideline for the substantive offense, plus any adjustments from such guideline.” Id.

§ 2X1.1(a). Wilson does not challenge the application of the cross-reference or that his 

firearm offense was connected to an 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) drug-trafficking offense. 

Case: 22-50857 Document: 00516958320 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 22-50857 

3 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5), (c)(6). The PSR then added two levels for Wilson’s 

gun possession, see id. § 2D1.1(b)(1), and deducted three levels for Wilson’s 

acceptance of responsibility, bringing his total offense level to 27. Wilson’s 

criminal history of VI produced a Guidelines range of 130 to 162 months’ 

imprisonment. But because the statutory maximum punishment was 120 

months, the Guidelines recommended that sentence. 

Wilson filed a written objection to the PSR, challenging its calculation 

of his base offense level. He argued that, because the seized 

methamphetamine was in pill form, his sentence should have been calculated 

using the Typical Weight Per Unit Table in application note 9 rather than the 

Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1(c). Had the PSR applied the Per Unit Table, 

Wilson’s total offense level would have been 21, producing a Guidelines 

range of 77 to 96 months.3

Wilson also filed a sentencing memorandum. He reiterated his 

objection to the PSR and alternatively requested a downward variance. The 

Government filed a written response, arguing that the PSR correctly 

calculated Wilson’s sentence using the Drug Quantity Table. It reasoned 

that, because the pills had been weighed, the Per Unit Table did not apply to 

Wilson’s case because the table applies only when the weight of the 

controlled substance is unknown. Wilson renewed his objection at 

sentencing. 

The district court overruled Wilson’s objection but granted a 

downward variance, imposing a below-Guidelines sentence of 110 months of 

_____________________ 

3

 The Per Unit Table assigns actual methamphetamine an estimated weight of 5 

milligrams per pill, capsule, or dose. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.9. Five milligrams, 

multiplied by 954 seized pills is 4.8 grams of pure methamphetamine, producing a base 

offense level of 22. Id. § 2D1.1(c)(9). 

Case: 22-50857 Document: 00516958320 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 22-50857 

4 

imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release. Wilson timely 

appealed his sentence. 

II 

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its 

interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines de novo. United 

States v. Ferris, 52 F.4th 235, 239 (5th Cir. 2022). 

III 

Wilson’s challenge requires us to interpret the Guidelines’ text. He 

argues that the plain language of application note 9 specifies that the court 

must use the Per Unit Table when a defendant is sentenced for possessing 

methamphetamine in pill form. 

We apply the typical rules of statutory interpretation to the 

Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Stanford, 883 F.3d 500, 511 (5th Cir. 

2018). We start with the Guideline’s text. Id. “If the language is 

unambiguous, and does not lead to an ‘absurd result,’ [our] inquiry begins 

and ends with the plain meaning of that language.” Id. (citing United States 

v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 473 (5th Cir. 2016)). Like statutes, we read the 

Guidelines as a whole “since the meaning of statutory language, plain or not, 

depends on context.” Id. (quoting United States v. Hoang, 636 F.3d 677, 681 

(5th Cir. 2011)). “[C]ommentary in the Guidelines Manual that interprets or 

explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a 

federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that 

guideline.” Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993); accord United 

States v. Cortez-Gonzalez, 929 F.3d 200, 204 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. 

Choulat, 75 F.4th 489, 494 (5th Cir. 2023). 

Case: 22-50857 Document: 00516958320 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 22-50857 

5 

A 

First, some background. For drug crimes, a defendant’s base offense 

level is generally calculated by referencing the Drug Quantity Table in 

§ 2D1.1(c). U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5). The Drug Quantity Table assigns 

offense levels based on the type and weight of the drugs involved. Id. 

§ 2D1.1(c)(1)–(17). Except when “otherwise specified,” the table uses “the 

entire weight of any mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of 

the controlled substance.” Id. § 2D1.1(c), n.(A). 

As to methamphetamine, the table distinguishes between 

“methamphetamine (actual)”—which is the weight of the 

methamphetamine itself—and the mixture or substance containing 

methamphetamine. Id. § 2D1.1(c), n.(B). “In the case of a mixture or 

substance containing . . . methamphetamine,” the Guidelines directs courts 

to “use the offense level determined by the entire weight of the mixture or 

substance, or the offense level determined by the weight of 

the . . . methamphetamine (actual), whichever is greater.” Id. 

This appeal is about the relationship between § 2D1.1(c) and 

application note 9. That note applies when “the number of doses, pills, or 

capsules” is known but “the weight of the controlled substance” is not. Id. 

§ 2D1.1, cmt. n.9. In those cases, application note 9 directs courts to 

“multiply the number of doses, pills, or capsules by the typical weight per 

dose” in the Per Unit Table “to estimate the total weight of the controlled 

substance.” Id. But application note 9 cautions courts not to use the “table if 

any more reliable estimate of the total weight is available from case-specific 

information.” Id. And, for the substances marked with an asterisk, including 

methamphetamine, the table further warns that it “provides a very 

conservative estimate of the total weight.” Id. § 2D1.1, cmt. nn.9 & 9*. 

Case: 22-50857 Document: 00516958320 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 22-50857 

6 

B 

Wilson acknowledges that the general rule for calculating drug 

quantity under § 2D1.1(c) is to use the weight of the mixture or substance 

containing a detectable amount of the controlled substance. But he contends 

that application note 9 creates an exception to this general rule. He argues 

that when, as here, methamphetamine is in pill form, § 2D1.1(c) does not 

apply at all because the Per Unit Table in application note 9 estimates the 

quantity of actual methamphetamine rather than the mixture or substance 

containing methamphetamine. See id. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.9. Otherwise, he 

argues, application note 9 would be superfluous. We disagree. 

1 

Application Note 9 is not an exception to the general mixture-orsubstance rule. First, by its plain terms, application note 9 applies only when 

the “weight of the controlled substance” is unknown. Id. That is not the case 

here. 

Wilson tries to get around this fact by arguing that the first sentence 

of application note 9 redefines “weight of the controlled substance” to mean 

the amount of the actual controlled substance. Recall, the first sentence of 

application note 9 says, “If the number of doses, pills, or capsules but not the 

weight of the controlled substance is known, multiply the number of doses, pills, 

or capsules by the typical weight per dose in the table below to estimate the 

total weight of the controlled substance.” Id. (emphasis added). 

In support of this argument, Wilson says that we must use the 

definition of “controlled substance” from 21 U.S.C. § 802(6). That section 

defines “controlled substance” as “a drug or other substance . . . included in 

schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(6). 

But this argument ignores Note A to the Drug Quantity Table, which 

explains that “the weight of a controlled substance set forth in the table refers 

Case: 22-50857 Document: 00516958320 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 22-50857 

7 

to the entire weight of any mixture or substance containing a detectable 

amount of the controlled substance.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), n.(A). We must 

construe application note 9 in light of this rule because application note 9 is 

not part of the Guidelines. “Like all other application notes, it serves to 

‘interpret the guideline[s] or explain how [they are] to be applied.’” United 

States v. Shabazz, 933 F.2d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (alteration in original) 

(quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7). 

Additionally, the Per Unit Table itself follows the general mixture-orsubstance rule. For each drug, the table provides the estimated typical 

mixture weight per pill. The table departs from this general rule only for 

seven controlled substances marked with an asterisk. For those marked 

substances, “the weight per unit shown is the weight of the actual controlled 

substance, and not generally the weight of the mixture or substance 

containing the controlled substance.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.9. 

True, methamphetamine is marked with an asterisk, which means that 

the table estimates the weight of the actual methamphetamine per pill. But 

recall that the Drug Quantity Table provides different offense levels for 

methamphetamine based on mixture-or-substance weight and

methamphetamine based on actual weight. Id. § 2D.1.1(c). Application 

note 9 merely expresses the Guideline’s preference that, when the mixture 

weight of methamphetamine is unknown, courts must estimate the total 

weight based on the actual weight of the methamphetamine per pill. As one 

of our sister circuits explained, this “simply reflects the Commission’s 

judgment that the per-unit weight of the relevant mixture or substance 

[containing methamphetamine] cannot be estimated with sufficient precision 

Case: 22-50857 Document: 00516958320 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 22-50857 

8 

so as to justify using the preferred approach” of using mixture weight.4 See 

Shabazz, 933 F.2d at 1034. 

2 

Nor is application note 9 superfluous. For it to apply, two conditions 

must be met: (1) the weight of the pills is unknown and (2) no more reliable 

estimate is available. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.9. Neither is met here. 

First, as the Government notes, Wilson relies on an assumption not 

true in every case—that all pills constituting relevant conduct have been 

seized and weighed. In many cases, the overall drug quantity attributable to a 

defendant is not based on seized drugs alone. Id. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.5 (“Types 

and quantities of drugs not specified in the count of conviction may be 

considered in determining the offense level.”). Application note 5 directs 

courts to approximate drug quantities using other evidence when “there is 

no drug seizure[,] or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the 

offense.” 5 Id.; see also United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 267 (5th Cir. 

2006) (“The court may extrapolate the quantity from any information that 

has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy, including 

_____________________ 

4

 Wilson does not argue, nor can he, that anything in § 2D1.1(c) requires courts to 

use the actual weight of methamphetamine when the mixture weight is available. Instead, 

when there is evidence of mixture weight and actual weight, the court must use “whichever 

is greater.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), n.(B). 

5

 Wilson contends that the connection to application note 5 is “untenable” because 

the notes do not work together or state that they work in step. But we decline his invitation 

to read application note 9 in isolation. We must read statutory language in context. Chamber 

of Com. of U.S. of Am. v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 885 F.3d 360, 372 (5th Cir. 2018) (“[S]tatutory 

language cannot be construed in a vacuum. It is a fundamental canon of statutory 

construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to 

their place in the overall statutory scheme.” (alteration in original) (quoting Davis v. Mich. 

Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809, (1989))).

Case: 22-50857 Document: 00516958320 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 22-50857 

9 

a probation officer’s testimony, a policeman’s approximation of unrecovered 

drugs, and even hearsay.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 

And second, application note 9 prohibits the use of the Per Unit Table 

“if any more reliable estimate of the total weight is available from casespecific information.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.9. Our sister circuits agree 

that evidence of mixture weight—when available—is more reliable than an 

estimate from the Per Unit Table. See, e.g., United States v. Roche, 415 F.3d 

614, 619 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that the district court properly estimated 

drug weight based on the actual weight of recovered ecstasy tablets because 

“the defendant is responsible for the weight of the whole pill, not just the 

active ingredient”); United States v. Tracy, 989 F.2d 1279, 1287 (1st Cir. 

1993) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that the court should have used 

the Per Unit Table because “the table produces conservative estimates that, 

among other things, do not account for the weight of the ‘mixture or 

substance’ that should be included in calculating the amount of LSD for 

sentencing”); United States v. Martz, 964 F.2d 787, 790 (8th Cir. 1992) 

(holding that the district court did not err by using an estimate from the 

lightest known dose instead of the Per Unit Table). In this case, there is no 

need to rely on an estimate because the weight of the pills is known and 

undisputed. 

Wilson resists this conclusion by relying heavily on our decision in 

United States v. Tushnet, 526 F.3d 823 (5th Cir. 2008). But Tushnet is not to 

the contrary. In Tushnet, the defendant accepted responsibility for 45,331 

MDMA pills. Id. at 823. The DEA tested 5,000 of those pills and determined 

that each pill contained 100 milligrams of actual MDMA. Id. at 824. But the 

weight of the other 40,000 pills was unknown. In calculating Tushnet’s 

sentence, the district court consulted the Per Unit Table and used the 

presumed typical weight of 250 milligrams per pill rather than the 100-

milligram figure. Id. We affirmed. 

Case: 22-50857 Document: 00516958320 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 22-50857 

10 

Tushnet does not help Wilson. For one, unlike in Tushnet, the weight 

of all the pills that Wilson is responsible for is known, so there is no reason to 

consult application note 9 for an estimate. And, contrary to Wilson’s 

assertion, Tushnet did not establish a general rule that courts must use the 

table when pills are involved. Rather, we held that the district court did not 

err by using the table in that case. True, Tushnet concerned MDMA, which 

is not asterisked in the Per Unit Table. For Tushnet’s sentence, this meant 

that the weight of the actual MDMA was irrelevant. But, as we previously 

explained, it does not help Wilson that methamphetamine is asterisked. And 

here, even if the court estimated the amount of actual methamphetamine 

using the table, it would still have to use the mixture weight because that 

measure produces a higher offense level. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), n.(B) (“In the 

case of a mixture or substance containing . . . methamphetamine,” the court 

must “use the offense level determined by the entire weight of the mixture 

or substance, or the offense level determined by the weight of 

the . . . methamphetamine (actual), whichever is greater.”). 

IV 

Application note 9 does not apply to Wilson’s case—the weight of 

Wilson’s methamphetamine pills was known and more reliable than the 

hypothetical weight from the Per Unit Table. Because the plain language of 

application note 9 does not create an exception to the general mixture-orsubstance rule, the district court did not err by sentencing Wilson based on 

the gross weight of his methamphetamine pills. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 

Case: 22-50857 Document: 00516958320 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/06/2023