Court Opinion

ID: 9384175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-01 00:00:42.033004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:51.140766
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10344       Document: 00516697216             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/31/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                     No. 22-10344
                                   Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                   ____________                                March 31, 2023
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                        Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Ronald Wayne Brewer,

                                             Defendant—Appellant.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:21-CR-32-1
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Ronald Wayne Brewer appeals the 135-month sentence imposed by
   the district court following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess
   with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable
   amount of methamphetamine.

          _____________________
          *
              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   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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.
Case: 22-10344      Document: 00516697216           Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                     No. 22-10344

          First, Brewer argues that the district court erred by imposing the two-
   level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) based on his co-
   conspirator’s possession of a firearm without evidence that he could have
   reasonably foreseen that his co-conspirator would be in possession of the
   firearm. Where such a claim of sentencing error has been preserved, we
   review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its
   factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Barry, 978 F.3d 214, 217
   (5th Cir. 2020). We need not decide whether Brewer preserved this claimed
   error because, even if we assume it was preserved, his challenge fails. See
   United States v. Suchowolski, 838 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 2016).
          Section 2D1.1(b)(1) establishes a two-level enhancement for those
   convicted of a drug-trafficking offense “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a
   firearm) was possessed[.]” § 2D1.1(b)(1). Where the weapon was possessed
   not by the defendant but by “another individual involved in the commission
   of an offense . . . , the Government must show that the defendant could have
   reasonably foreseen that possession.” United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,
   517 F.3d 751, 765 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). Whether a co-conspirator’s or co-defendant’s possession of a
   firearm was reasonably foreseeable to a defendant is a factual finding
   reviewed for clear error. See id. at 765-66; United States v. Chavez, 119 F.3d
   342, 348 (5th Cir. 1997).
          In this case, officers observed a vehicle, driven by Brewer’s co-
   conspirator, leave Brewer’s residence and continue to a parking lot, where
   Brewer exited the vehicle to speak to the driver of another vehicle. When
   Brewer returned to the co-conspirator’s vehicle, Brewer was arrested.
   Brewer was carrying a plastic baggie containing methamphetamine, and
   officers located a digital scale in his possession. In addition, a plastic baggie
   containing methamphetamine was found in the center console of the co-
   conspirator’s vehicle, and an empty handgun holster was located under the

                                          2
Case: 22-10344      Document: 00516697216          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                    No. 22-10344

   driver’s seat. During a search of the co-conspirator, the officers located a 9-
   millimeter pistol in his waistband, and the magazine was loaded with 10
   rounds. Following the arrest, Brewer admitted that he had conducted a drug
   transaction in the parking lot and that he and his co-conspirator had been
   headed to a dope house.
          During the sentencing hearing, Brewer’s counsel conceded that
   Brewer and the co-conspirator were engaged in jointly undertaken criminal
   activity from the time they got into the co-conspirator’s vehicle until their
   arrest. The district court found that the co-conspirator’s possession of the
   firearm was within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity and
   that it was reasonably foreseeable to Brewer that his co-conspirator would
   have the firearm. Based on this record, the district court did not clearly err
   in finding that the co-conspirator’s possession of the firearm was reasonably
   foreseeable to Brewer. See Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d at 765-66; Chavez,
   119 F.3d at 348; see also United States v. Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d 388, 390 (5th
   Cir. 2010) (“[B]ecause firearms are tools of the trade of those engaged in
   illegal drug activities, a district court may ordinarily infer that a defendant
   should have foreseen a co-defendant’s possession of a dangerous weapon”
   where “the government demonstrates that another participant knowingly
   possessed the weapon while he and the defendant committed the offense by
   jointly engaging in concerted criminal activity involving a quantity of
   narcotics sufficient to support an inference of an intent to distribute.”
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
          Second, Brewer argues that the district court erred by treating the
   Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory. Because Brewer
   filed a motion for a downward variance based on a policy disagreement with
   the treatment of methamphetamine under the Guidelines, we regard this
   claim as preserved and review for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.
   Gozes-Wagner, 977 F.3d 323, 338-39 (5th Cir. 2020). During the sentencing

                                         3
Case: 22-10344     Document: 00516697216           Page: 4   Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                    No. 22-10344

   hearing, the district court acknowledged that it had the discretion to vary
   from the Guidelines based on the policy disagreement that Brewer had raised,
   but it declined to do so. See United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 340 (5th
   Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See
   Gozes-Wagner, 977 F.3d at 340.
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                         4