IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30582

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

STACEY H. WATSON, 

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:11-CR-189

Before DAVIS, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant Stacey H. Watson (“Watson”) 

pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Based on her relevant conduct, Watson’s

guideline range was 135 to 168 months of imprisonment. The district court

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-30582 Document: 00512376512 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2013
No. 12-30582

granted the Government’s § 5K1.1 motion for substantial assistance and

sentenced Watson to 72 months of imprisonment. 

Watson contends that the district court’s consideration of her relevant

conduct in determining her sentence resulted in an unreasonable sentence. 

Because Watson preserved this issue before the district court, her argument is

reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007). 

Watson pleaded guilty to count 8 of the indictment that charged her with

possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine on May 5, 2011. On that

day, Watson had possession of one gram of methamphetamine. However, count

8 did not provide a quantity of methamphetamine. The PSR calculated that

over the years she was accountable for distribution of 4,592.7 grams of

methamphetamine, which translates into approximately 4.6 kilograms. At

sentencing, defense counsel stated that Watson “would stipulate that the overall

amount of drugs involved by all participants in the conspiracy would be at or

above 1.5 kilograms.” Nonetheless, defense counsel continued to object to the

use of her relevant conduct in light of her plea to the one count in which she

physically possessed only one gram. 

The guidelines provide that if the offense involves at least 1.5 kilograms

but less than 5 kilograms, the base offense level is 34. § 2D1.1(c)(3). The district

court granted a 3-point reduction based on her acceptance of responsibility,

bringing the offense level down to 31. With a criminal history category of III, the

guideline range was 135 to 168 months. The Government moved for a downward

departure for substantial assistance pursuant to § 5K1.1. The district court

granted the motion and downwardly departed to a sentence of 72 months. 

This claim will afford Watson no relief. Section 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) of the

guidelines provides that a defendant’s base offense level “shall be determined”

based on relevant conduct. On appeal, Watson does not make an argument

2

 Case: 12-30582 Document: 00512376512 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2013
No. 12-30582

challenging the factual determination of her relevant conduct. Thus, Watson

has not shown that the district court committed procedural error in using the

relevant conduct to determine her base offense level. This Court has “held that

a sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively

reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Here,

the district court properly calculated Watson’s offense level based on her

relevant conduct and then downwardly departed based on her substantial

assistance. Watson has shown neither that the district court abused its

discretion nor that her sentence is unreasonable.

For the above reasons, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 12-30582 Document: 00512376512 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/17/2013