Court Opinion

ID: 9889585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-10 19:00:51.019876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:58.190292
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60195         Document: 00516925481             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/10/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-60195
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               October 10, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Boris Ward,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 5:19-CR-3-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          A jury convicted Boris Ward of possession of methamphetamine
   (mixture) with intent to distribute, possession of 50 grams or more of
   methamphetamine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm by a
   felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
   The district court sentenced him within the guidelines range to a total of 295

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60195      Document: 00516925481           Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/10/2023

                                     No. 23-60195

   months of imprisonment, followed by a five-year term of supervised release.
   On appeal, Ward contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective
   assistance and the district court abused its discretion by denying his request
   for a downward variance.
          Ward argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
   (1) failing to understand the Government’s plea offer and to adequately
   explain it, (2) advising Ward to reject a proposed stipulation to a previous
   felony conviction and failing to object to the introduction of evidence of
   Ward’s prior conviction, and (3) failing to object to the introduction of
   photographs of methamphetamine sold by Ward in lieu of the drugs
   themselves, which had been destroyed by mistake. However, generally,
   claims of “ineffective assistance of counsel should not be litigated on direct
   appeal.” United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Here, the record does not allow us “to fairly evaluate the merits of the
   claim[s].” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The record
   does not substantially detail trial counsel’s knowledge, understanding of the
   case, investigations, legal research, advice to Ward, or strategic decisions
   made during the representation. See United States v. Bounds, 943 F.2d 541,
   544 (5th Cir. 1991). Ward did not file any post-trial motions contesting his
   counsel’s actions or otherwise complain about his counsel’s performance.
   See United States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1995). Finally, his
   claims are not based on purely legal issues but rather on counsel’s actions or
   failures to act. See United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 719 (5th Cir. 2015).
   Therefore, we decline to consider Ward’s claims of ineffective assistance of
   counsel at this time without prejudice to his right to raise them in a 28 U.S.C.
   § 2255 motion. See, e.g., United States v. Gulley, 526 F.3d 809, 821-22 (5th
   Cir. 2008).

                                          2
Case: 23-60195       Document: 00516925481          Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/10/2023

                                     No. 23-60195

          Further, Ward claims that the distinction in the Sentencing
   Guidelines between methamphetamine mixture and d-methamphetamine
   hydrochloride, or “Ice,” resulted in an unwarranted sentencing disparity in
   his case. See generally U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). He argues that the district court
   should have granted his request for a downward variance to account for this
   disparity.   This argument “amounts to a challenge to the substantive
   reasonableness of [his] sentence,” which we review for abuse of discretion,
   while maintaining a presumption that a within-guidelines sentence is
   reasonable. United States v. Douglas, 957 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2020)
   (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
          While the district court has the discretion to sentence a defendant
   based on policy disagreements with how the Guidelines treat different forms
   of methamphetamine, it is not required to do so, and a within-guidelines
   sentence     is   not   substantively   unreasonable   merely    because    the
   methamphetamine Guideline is “not empirically-based.” United States v.
   Lara, 23 F.4th 459, 486 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2790 (2022); see
   United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 338-39 (5th Cir. 2016). In this case,
   the record indicates that the district court was aware of its discretion to vary
   downward for policy reasons and chose not to exercise its discretion. See
   Malone, 828 F.3d at 338-39. Additionally, the record shows that the district
   court relied on appropriate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in determining the
   sentence. See Douglas, 957 F.3d at 609-10. Nothing suggests that the district
   court failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight,
   gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of
   judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See id. at 609. Therefore,
   Ward has failed to rebut the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence
   is reasonable. See Lara, 23 F.4th at 486; Douglas, 957 F.3d at 609.
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                           3