Court Opinion

ID: 9914778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 01:00:37.392504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:28.251393
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30643        Document: 00517018345             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/02/2024

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                      No. 22-30643                              January 2, 2024
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   James Alexander,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:21-CR-71-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         James Alexander pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess
   with the intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of
   21 U.S.C. § 846, and was sentenced within the guidelines range to
   262 months of imprisonment, followed by a five-year term of supervised
   release. For the first time on appeal, he complains that he was charged with

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30643      Document: 00517018345            Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/02/2024

                                      No. 22-30643

   a drug conspiracy involving heroin but was convicted for an offense involving
   Fentanyl, which he argues amounted to a constructive amendment of the
   indictment, in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.
          As the Government contends, constructive amendment of the
   indictment is a claim of trial error and thus has no application where, as here,
   the defendant pleaded guilty. See United States v. Phillips, 477 F.3d 215, 222
   (5th Cir. 2007). Although we do not construe counseled briefs liberally, see
   Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986), Alexander’s argument
   that he was convicted for an offense with which he was not charged
   challenges the sufficiency of the factual basis for his plea. Because he did not
   raise the argument first in the district court, we review for plain error. See
   United States v. Palmer, 456 F.3d 484, 489 (5th Cir. 2006). To establish plain
   error, Alexander must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that
   affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
   (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct
   the error but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or
   public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.
          The district court did not clearly or obviously err in accepting the
   factual basis for Alexander’s plea, which established his knowing agreement
   with another conspirator to violate the narcotics laws, his voluntary
   participation in the conspiracy, and the quantity of drugs involved in the
   conspiracy. See United States v. Hildenbrand, 527 F.3d 466, 474-75 (5th Cir.
   2008); see also United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 303 (5th Cir.
   2014) (en banc); United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 559 (5th Cir. 2002).
   Alexander’s complaint that he pleaded guilty to a conspiracy involving
   heroin, and believed the substance involved to be heroin but later discovered
   that it was Fentanyl, does not affect the validity of the factual basis for his
   plea because drug type is not an element of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) or of

                                           2
Case: 22-30643         Document: 00517018345              Page: 3       Date Filed: 01/02/2024

                                          No. 22-30643

   conspiracy to commit a violation of § 841(a)(1). 1 United States v. Patino-
   Prado, 533 F.3d 304, 309-10 (5th Cir. 2008).
           Alexander additionally argues that the district court committed
   procedural error in treating the Guidelines as mandatory when denying his
   motion for a downward variance. As with his preceding argument, because
   he did not object in the district court, plain error review applies. See United
   States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009); see also
   United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009).
           At sentencing, the district court stated that it had read Alexander’s
   motion for a downward variance, as well as the letters from friends and family
   and his own letter seeking leniency, considered his allocution and the
   testimony of his witnesses, and had considered the Government’s opposition
   to the requested variance. It summarized the arguments presented but found
   no reasonable basis to depart from the guidelines range, while specifically
   acknowledging its “great discretion” to craft a reasonable sentence, clearly
   indicating its awareness of its authority to depart from the Guidelines. The
   court further explained that the sentence was justified by the 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(a) factors as applied to the facts of Alexander’s case. Consequently,
   Alexander fails to show that the district court clearly or obviously erred in
   treating the Guidelines as mandatory. See United States v. Washington, 480
   F.3d 309, 320 (5th Cir. 2007).

           _____________________
           1
             Moreover, even if there was a clear or obvious error, Alexander fails to show that
   his substantial rights were affected. To make such a showing, he must demonstrate
   “a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.”
   United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004); see also United States v. Castro-
   Trevino, 464 F.3d 536, 540-47 (5th Cir. 2006). Alexander has abandoned by failing to brief
   any such argument. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Beasley,
   798 F.2d at 118.

                                                3
Case: 22-30643      Document: 00517018345          Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/02/2024

                                    No. 22-30643

          Next, Alexander asserts that the sentence imposed is substantively
   unreasonable. This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of the
   sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
   States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A discretionary sentence imposed within
   a properly calculated guidelines range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption
   of reasonableness. United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006).
   A defendant may rebut the presumption of reasonableness “by showing that
   the sentence does not account for factors that should receive significant
   weight, gives significant weight to irrelevant or improper factors, or
   represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” United
   States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012).
          Alexander has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness
   attached to his low-end guidelines sentence. He contends that the district
   court failed to consider and give sufficient weight to the mitigation arguments
   and evidence he presented in his motion for a downward variance and instead
   gave too much weight to the career offender Guideline. However, the record
   establishes that the district court was presented with and specifically
   considered each of Alexander’s mitigation arguments. The court weighed
   those arguments against other relevant sentencing factors, including
   Alexander’s extensive criminal history and the need for the sentence
   imposed to provide deterrence and to promote respect for the law. See
   § 3553(a). Alexander’s appellate argument “amounts to a request that we
   reweigh the sentencing factors and substitute our judgment for that of the
   district court, which we will not do.” United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d
   161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017).
          Finally, Alexander contends that the district court plainly erred in
   treating him as a career offender because his instant conviction for conspiring
   to commit a controlled substance offense is not a “controlled substance
   offense” within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and § 4B1.2, as the

                                         4
Case: 22-30643      Document: 00517018345           Page: 5     Date Filed: 01/02/2024

                                     No. 22-30643

   definition of such offenses does not include inchoate crimes like conspiracies.
   He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in
   United States v. Vargas, 74 F.4th 673 (5th Cir. 2023)(en banc), petition for cert.
   filed (U.S. Oct. 23, 2023) (No. 23-5875), but he seeks to preserve it for
   possible further review.
          In Vargas, this court held that “inchoate offenses like conspiracy are
   included in the definition of ‘controlled substance offense.’” Vargas, 74
   F.4th at 698. Thus, as Alexander correctly concedes, his argument is
   foreclosed. See id.
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                           5