Court Opinion

ID: 9946444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 19:01:26.002553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:26.511873
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30440           Document: 51-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/29/2024

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

                                                                                    FILED
                                     No. 23-30440                            February 29, 2024
                                   Summary Calendar
                                   ____________                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Julius Winfield, III,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 5:22-CR-169-1
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Julius Winfield, III, contests his within-Guidelines 78-months’
sentence,      following     his     guilty-plea     conviction      for    distributing
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (prohibiting
distribution of controlled substance), (b)(1)(C) (outlining penalty). He
asserts the court abused its discretion by imposing a substantively-

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30440        Document: 51-1        Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/29/2024

                                  No. 23-30440

unreasonable sentence based on the Sentencing Guidelines’ disparate
treatment of pure methamphetamine relative to a methamphetamine
mixture. Winfield maintains this distinction lacks an empirical basis and
results in unjust sentences and unwarranted sentencing disparities.
       Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, the district
court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating
the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51
(2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to
an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-Martinez,
564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in
district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual
findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517
F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
       Winfield’s within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable,
and he has failed to rebut this presumption or show the court otherwise
abused its discretion. See United States v. Lara, 23 F.4th 459, 485–86 (5th
Cir. 2022) (rejecting empirical challenge); United States v. Douglas, 957 F.3d
602, 609–10 (5th Cir. 2020) (“[Defendant] is effectively asking us to reweigh
the district court’s calculus of the relevant factors, which we will not do”.);
United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 338–39 (5th Cir. 2016) (“[A] defendant
is entitled to have his sentence set by a judge aware of the discretion [to vary]
. . . . [Nevertheless,] a district judge is never required to vary”. (emphasis in
original) (citation omitted)).
       AFFIRMED.

                                        2