United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-10803 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

D'Arde Lee Williams, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:20-CR-18-1 

Before Haynes, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

D’Arde Lee Williams appeals the 30-month prison term and one-year 

term of supervised release imposed on his guilty plea conviction for escaping 

from federal custody. See 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). We affirm. 

*

 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 

June 18, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-10803 Document: 00515905394 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2021
No. 20-10803 

2 

Reviewing for plain error,1 we reject the contention that Williams was 

entitled to a reduction of his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(3), 

which establishes a four-level reduction for a defendant who is under arrest 

on a felony charge or in custody for any conviction and who escapes from the 

nonsecure custody of a community corrections center, a community 

treatment center, a halfway house, or a like facility without returning 

voluntarily within 96 hours, provided he commits no other felony while 

escaped. United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 351 (5th Cir. 2010); United 

States v. Fernandez-Cusco, 447 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006). Under the plain 

error standard’s first three prongs, the defendant must show (1) a forfeited 

error (2) that is clear or obvious, i.e., not “subject to reasonable dispute,” 

and (3) that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 135 (2009); see United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 377-78 (5th Cir. 

2009). Thereafter, remedying the error is a matter of judicial discretion. 

Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. 

Williams fails in his attempt to show that he was in the custody of a 

halfway house when he escaped and is thus entitled to the offense level 

reduction. At best, the record shows that the claim is subject to reasonable 

dispute. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Ellis, 564 F.3d at 377-78. The factual 

resume states variously that at the moment of his escape, Williams was 

confined in a halfway house in Houston, was in custody at a federal prison in 

Colorado, was assigned to but not yet at the Houston halfway house, and 

1

 The Government argues that the proper standard is “invited error” due to the 

fact that Williams’s counsel affirmatively stated to the court that the § 2P1.1(b)(3) 

reduction at issue here was not in play. See United States v. Baytank (Houston), Inc., 934 

F.2d 599, 606 (5th Cir. 1991) (“A party generally may not invite error and then complain 

thereof.”). However, because Williams fails even under plain error, out of an “abundance 

of caution,” we will examine under plain error review. United States v. Fernandez-Cusco, 

447 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006) 

Case: 20-10803 Document: 00515905394 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2021
No. 20-10803 

3 

escaped from neither the prison nor the halfway house but from a bus station 

in Lubbock. These ambiguities alone are a basis for reasonable debate about 

whether he was in nonsecure custody and thus entitled to the § 2P1.1(b)(3) 

reduction. The reasonableness of the debate is not diminished by the novel 

notions Williams advances that he could not be adjudged guilty unless his 

escape was from the halfway house and that the grand jury’s choice of words 

in the indictment dictates the sentencing determination. See United States v. 

Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 319 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v Gluck, 143 F.3d 174, 

178 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Taylor, 933 F.2d 307, 309 (5th Cir. 1991). 

Further, even if we reached the third prong of plain error review, we 

would conclude any error did not affect his substantial rights given the 

district court’s statement that the same sentence would have been entered 

even if the guidelines calculation was incorrect for the same reasons stated. 

See United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 511 (5th Cir. 2012)(even where 

harmless error review applies, such a statement that the district court would 

have imposed the same sentence for the same reason can support a finding of 

harmless error). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-10803 Document: 00515905394 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/18/2021