United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-41064

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

James Roye Bryan Townzen, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:18-CR-1336-1

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

James Roye Bryan Townzen pleaded guilty without a plea agreement 

to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a synthetic cannabinoid and 

was sentenced to 222 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised 

release, and a $100 special assessment. He appeals the sentence imposed by 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 24, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-41064 Document: 00515756270 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2021
No. 19-41064

2

the district court. He argues the district court erred in determining the drug 

quantity applicable to him. He asserted that his group was scheduled to 

receive 3.5 kilograms of the core chemical used to make synthetic marijuana 

and that this would have converted to a drug weight of 584.5 kilograms, 

resulting in a base offense level of 26. In addition, he argues the district court 

erred in including the weight of the plant and other base material to the total 

drug quantity before converting it to its marijuana equivalence. He further 

contends that even if the Government may add the seized finished product 

of 1,023 grams, the total converted drug weight would be less than 1,000 

kilograms, resulting in a base offense level of 28.

Although Townzen objected to the drug quantity calculation in the 

district court, Townzen did not raise the specific arguments that he is now 

raising on appeal. Because he is making arguments on appeal that are 

different from those he made in the district court, review is limited to plain 

error. See United States v. Juarez, 626 F.3d 246, 253-54 (5th Cir. 2010). To 

prevail on plain error review, Townzen must identify (1) a forfeited error (2) 

that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. 

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

requirements, this court may, in its discretion, remedy the error if the error 

“seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The district court considered the information in the PSR, as well as 

the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing by the Government. The 

court determined that the ratio of 3.3 grams of the core chemical to 500 grams 

of finished product was reasonable. It also determined that the 167:1 

conversion ratio contained in the Guidelines was appropriate. After 

considering the extensive evidence and the parties’ arguments, the district 

court determined that a conservative estimate of the converted drug weight 

in the instant case was 10,000 to 30,000 kilograms, which established a base 

Case: 19-41064 Document: 00515756270 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2021
No. 19-41064

3

offense level of 34. Because Townzen merely objected to way the drug 

quantity was calculated and did not present any evidence to rebut the 

evidence in the PSR or the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing, he 

has not shown that the district court plainly erred in relying on this evidence 

or in making the drug quantity determination. See United States v. Alaniz, 

726 F.3d 586, 619 (5th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 

226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012). Townzen has also failed to show that the district 

court plainly erred because it did not exclude the plant or base material from 

the drug quantity. See United States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 467-49 (5th Cir. 

2016); see also U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.1) & (Notes A, B, and G to 

Drug Quantity Table). For these reasons, Townzen has not shown that the 

district court’s drug quantity determination was error, plain or otherwise. 

See Juarez, 626 F.3d at 253-54; United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590-91 

(5th Cir. 2013).

Next, Townzen asserts that the sentence imposed by the district court 

was substantively unreasonable because the district court refused to consider 

a downward departure based on the weight of the raw chemicals. After 

considering the PSR, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the evidence presented 

at the sentencing hearing, and the parties’ arguments, the district court 

determined that a below-guidelines sentence of 222 months was appropriate 

under the circumstances. The sentence is entitled to a presumption of 

reasonableness. See United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 

2015). Townzen has not rebutted the presumption as he has not shown the 

district court did not account for a factor that should have received significant 

weight, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error in 

balancing the sentencing factors. See id. at 558. His disagreement with the 

district court’s balancing of the sentencing factors is insufficient to rebut the 

presumption of reasonableness. See Koss, 812 F.3d at 472; see also United 

States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). Therefore, Townzen has 

Case: 19-41064 Document: 00515756270 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/24/2021
No. 19-41064

4

not shown that the sentence imposed by the district court was substantively 

unreasonable. See Simpson, 796 F.3d at 558.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-41064 Document: 00515756270 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/24/2021