Court Opinion

ID: 9946445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 19:01:28.261975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:26.487495
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30464           Document: 55-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/29/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit

                                   No. 23-30464                                    FILED
                                 Summary Calendar                           February 29, 2024
                                 ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Paul Vincent Williams,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Louisiana
                            USDC No. 5:22-CR-89-1
                  ______________________________

Before Willett, Duncan, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Paul Vincent Williams appeals following his guilty plea conviction for
possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possessing a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He was sentenced within
the advisory guidelines range to a total of 216 months of imprisonment.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30464         Document: 55-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/29/2024

                                  No. 23-30464

         First, Williams challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress, arguing that law enforcement did not have a legal basis for the stop
and search of his vehicle. When a motion to suppress is denied, we review
any factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. United
States v. Hearn, 563 F.3d 95, 103 (5th Cir. 2009).           Williams fails to
demonstrate any error in the district court’s ruling that the stop and search
were constitutionally justified by what the officers knew through their
investigation of Williams’s drug trafficking activities, including his travel to
a scheduled drug transaction with a confidential informant preceding the
stop. See United States v. Wadley, 59 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1995); United
States v. Beene, 818 F.3d 157, 164 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Ibarra, 493
F.3d 526, 530 (5th Cir. 2007).
         Second, Williams challenges the district court’s inclusion of drugs
seized from him months before the stop in the calculation of the sentencing
guidelines range. We review for clear error a district court’s determination
of relevant conduct at sentencing, including additional drug amounts for the
purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. United States v. Barfield, 941 F.3d 757, 761
(5th Cir. 2019). Williams fails to demonstrate clear error in the district
court’s finding that the prior drug seizures were part of the same course of
conduct. See id. at 761-63; United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878, 886-87 (5th
Cir. 2009).
         Third, Williams argues that the district court imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence. In light of our deferential standard of review, we are
not persuaded that Williams’s arguments regarding deterrence and his
acceptance of responsibility have rebutted the applicable presumption of
reasonableness. See United States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 466, 472 (5th Cir.
2016).
         AFFIRMED.

                                        2