Court Opinion

ID: 9377523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 01:00:40.258362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:14.759051
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30119       Document: 00516668554             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/07/2023

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

                                                                                     FILED
                                                                                 March 7, 2023
                                       No. 22-30119                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Delewis Johnson, IV; Roy Lee Jones, Jr.,

                                                              Defendants—Appellants.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Louisiana
                             USDC No. 3:20-CR-156-1

   Before Jones, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
           Delewis Johnson and Roy Lee Jones were convicted of conspiracy to
   possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine or
   500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable
   amount of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841. Johnson was also
   convicted of distributing methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841. Both

          *
              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   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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: 22-30119     Document: 00516668554           Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/07/2023

                                    No. 22-30119

   challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for their convictions on appeal.
   Jones also challenges two sentencing enhancements applied by the district
   court. We AFFIRM.
          Appellate courts affirm on the sufficiency of the evidence if, “after
   viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any
   rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
   beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct.
   2781, 2789 (1979).
          Both defendants challenge their convictions because, they say, the
   evidence did not demonstrate they trafficked methamphetamine as opposed
   to some other controlled substance. Yet even if that were indisputably true,
   it would require resentencing rather than acquittal. The relevant statute
   prohibits trafficking in any “controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
   The specific kind of controlled substance is “not a formal element of the
   conspiracy offense.” See United States v. Daniels, 723 F.3d 562, 573 (5th Cir.
   2013). Therefore, the defendants cannot challenge their convictions on these
   grounds, but merely their sentences. Id.
          Moreover, there is ample evidence that both defendants trafficked in
   methamphetamine. First, take Jones. Two street-level distributors testified
   that “Dee” (Johnson’s alias) supplied Jones with methamphetamine, who in
   turn supplied those lower on the totem pole. See United States v. Perry,
   35 F.4th 293, 317 (5th Cir. 2022) (“This Court has long held that a defendant
   may be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of a coconspirator who
   has accepted a plea bargain, so long as the coconspirator’s testimony is not
   incredible.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).       On an
   intercepted call, Jones told a coconspirator named Harris that Jones had
   “two” for him. In the following days, Harris let two other coconspirators
   know that Harris now had “meth” or “CDs” (slang the group used for

                                         2
Case: 22-30119     Document: 00516668554          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/07/2023

                                   No. 22-30119

   methamphetamine). On another call, Jones discussed paying “Dee” for
   “zips”—a term that a coconspirator testified referred to methamphetamine.
         Jones makes essentially two arguments as to why this evidence is
   insufficient; both fail. First, he contends that the testimony from his
   coconspirators is incredible because, according to a government expert,
   conspirators at Jones’s level in the distribution chain do not interact with
   street-level distributors. Second, he avers that his intercepted statements
   were vague and could have referred to marijuana rather than
   methamphetamine. But neither argument demonstrates that no rational trier
   of fact could have found Jones guilty. At this stage, the “evidence need not
   exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent
   with every conclusion except that of guilt, and this court will accept all
   credibility choices that tend to support the verdict.” United States v.
   Stevenson, 126 F.3d 662, 664 (5th Cir. 1997). The jury could have rationally
   concluded that the expert’s testimony was inapplicable to Jones’s situation
   and rejected alternative interpretations of his ambiguous statements.
         The evidence against Johnson is also sufficient. His counsel conceded
   that Johnson was involved in the marijuana trade with Jones and went by the
   name “Dee.” Multiple members of the conspiracy had heard that Jones got
   his methamphetamine from “Dee.” Jones acknowledged that his supply
   came from “Dee” on an intercepted call. On another call, Johnson offered
   to sell “broccoli” (which the prosecution interpreted as a reference to
   marijuana) or “the other one” to a police informant. When the informant
   ordered “the other one,” Johnson sent a shipment to a third party’s address.
   That shipment was stolen before the police could confiscate it, but shortly
   thereafter a person associated with the address was arrested with
   methamphetamine in his possession. The informant then placed a second
   order for “another one” with Johnson. Soon after, the informant received
   tracking information for the package, which was intercepted and found to

                                        3
Case: 22-30119      Document: 00516668554           Page: 4   Date Filed: 03/07/2023

                                     No. 22-30119

   contain a pound of methamphetamine. Like Jones, Johnson attempts to
   characterize the evidence as only supporting marijuana trafficking. He also
   denies that he sent the tracking number for the second package. But, at best,
   his counter-interpretation of the evidence merely establishes that a
   “reasonable hypothesis of innocence” is possible—not that the jury was
   irrational for rejecting that hypothesis.        Stevenson, 126 F.3d at 664.
   Consequently, both of Johnson’s convictions survive his sufficiency of the
   evidence challenge.
          Likewise, Jones’s challenges to his sentencing enhancements fail.
   The first enhancement was for acting as a manager or supervisor of a drug
   conspiracy under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). The second was imposed because his
   offense involved between 10,000 and 30,000 KG of Converted Drug Weight
   under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. Both enhancements rest on factual findings that are
   reviewed for clear error. United States v. Warren, 986 F.3d 557, 567 (5th Cir.
   2021) (manager/supervisor enhancement); United States v. Betancourt,
   422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005) (drug quantity). Therefore, the court
   should affirm if the decision below “is plausible in light of the whole record.”
   United States v. Blanco, 27 F.4th 375, 382 (5th Cir. 2022).
          Given Jones’s role in the distribution chain, the district court did not
   clearly err by applying the manager/supervisor enhancement. As mentioned
   above, the prosecution introduced evidence that Jones supplied the street-
   level distributors with methamphetamine that he obtained from Johnson.
   This position in the distribution chain gave him control over the other
   conspirators’ access to the drug.          At minimum, then, he “exercised
   management responsibility over the property, assets, or activities” of the
   enterprise. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 n. 2.
          Finally, the district court did not clearly err by applying the drug
   quantity enhancement. Jones makes several arguments to contend that his

                                          4
Case: 22-30119      Document: 00516668554           Page: 5   Date Filed: 03/07/2023

                                     No. 22-30119

   Converted Drug Weight includes drugs he never supplied. Some of his
   arguments fail for the same reasons that his sufficiency of the evidence
   argument fails. But more fundamentally, these arguments misconstrue the
   legal standard. Jones is responsible for the quantity of drugs that he “knew
   or should have known or foreseen was involved” in the conspiracy, not just
   the drugs he personally trafficked. United States v. Puma, 937 F.2d 151, 160
   (5th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456, 1484 (5th Cir.
   1993) (“involvement in a conspiracy is presumed to continue and will not be
   terminated until the co-conspirator acts affirmatively to defeat or disavow the
   purpose of the conspiracy”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if he
   did not personally supply all of the drugs at issue, he offers no argument as to
   why he could not have known that the conspiracy would encompass the
   quantities at issue. Ergo, his challenge to this enhancement cannot succeed.
                                                                   AFFIRMED.

                                          5