Court Opinion

ID: 9895335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 19:00:29.511312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:08.307299
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50996        Document: 00516957001             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/06/2023

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

                                      No. 22-50996
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                November 6, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Lashonda O’Neill,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:18-CR-68-2
                     ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Lashonda O’Neill was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent
   to distribute cocaine; possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and
   aiding and abetting; and money laundering. O’Neill challenges her sentence.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50996      Document: 00516957001          Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/06/2023

                                    No. 22-50996

   O’Neill contends that the district court clearly erred by imposing a two-level
   increase in her offense level for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1
   because O’Neill attempted to conceal the assets of her co-conspirator,
   Darwin Powell, from the Government.             O’Neill had approached an
   automobile dealer and had asked that Powell’s vehicles be placed under the
   dealer’s business name. Our review of this question is for clear error. See
   United States v. Powers, 168 F.3d 741, 752 (5th Cir. 1999).
          Although O’Neill couches this issue in terms of sufficiency of
   evidence, her true argument goes to materiality. See § 3C1.1, comment. (n.6).
   We have recognized that “it is not unusual for a drug trafficker to place
   property in the names of others in order to avoid seizure.” United States v.
   Milton, 147 F.3d 414, 422 (5th Cir. 1998). O’Neill’s effort to conceal
   Powell’s assets was material to her role in the conspiracy, and would tend to
   influence or affect an issue under determination, such as her relevant conduct
   and the assets of Powell subject to forfeiture and available for payment of a
   fine or restitution. See § 3C1.1, comment. (n.6; ); see also United States v.
   Miller, 607 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 2010). The district court’s finding that
   O’Neill obstructed justice was not clearly erroneous. See Powers, 168 F.3d at
   752. We thus need not reach the arguments regarding other evidence
   supporting the enhancement.

          O’Neill also challenges the enhancement of her offense level pursuant
   to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) because a dangerous weapon was possessed. Our
   review of this question is for clear error. See United States v. King, 773 F.3d
   48, 53 (5th Cir. 2014). Imposition of the dangerous-weapon enhancement is
   appropriate where it is shown that it was reasonably foreseeable to the
   defendant that another person involved in the commission of the offense was
   in possession of such a weapon. See United States v. Marquez, 685 F.3d 501,
   507 (5th Cir. 2012).

                                          2
Case: 22-50996      Document: 00516957001          Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/06/2023

                                    No. 22-50996

          The record reflects that Powell and O’Neill were in a common-law
   relationship, that Powell openly carried a firearm when he made deliveries of
   large quantities of cocaine, that O’Neill accompanied him on many occasions
   to purchase and deliver large quantities of cocaine, that Powell stored guns in
   a car at O’Neill’s parents’ house, and that O’Neill was otherwise extensively
   involved in Powell’s operations. Given these facts, the district court did not
   clearly err in finding that Powell’s possession of a dangerous weapon was
   reasonably foreseeable to O’Neill. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517
   F.3d 751, 764-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

          The judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                         3