Court Opinion

ID: 9383743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 00:00:22.787132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:47.619180
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30135        Document: 00516695180             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/30/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-30135
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                March 30, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Demarquiez D. Harris,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:19-CR-187-3
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Demarquiez D. Harris pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with the
   intent to distribute methamphetamine and distributing methamphetamine
   and cocaine base. The district court sentenced Harris to 262 months’
   imprisonment. Harris appeals his sentence, asserting mainly that he should
   not have been sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a)

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30135       Document: 00516695180           Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/30/2023

                                      No. 22-30135

   because one of his predicate convictions—a 2016 Louisiana conviction for
   possession with the intent to distribute marijuana when he was 17—would
   not be a qualifying offense under current law given the decriminalization of
   offenses involving trivial amounts of marijuana and the state’s subsequent
   raising of the threshold age to be charged as an adult to 18.
            Because Harris does not allege that his prior conviction was invalid
   due to the denial of counsel, the district court properly refused to consider
   his impermissible collateral challenge to his prior conviction. See Custis
   v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 495–97 (1994); United States v. Longstreet,
   603 F.3d 273, 276–77 (5th Cir. 2010). To the extent that Harris asks us to
   create a new exception to the general rule barring collateral challenges to
   prior convictions at sentencing, we decline to do so. See United States
   v. Montgomery, 974 F.3d 587, 590 n.4 (5th Cir. 2020). Harris’s argument that
   his prior conviction cannot support the career offender enhancement because
   Louisiana possession with the intent to distribute is broader than the generic
   definition of the offense will not be considered as it is raised for the first time
   in his reply brief. See United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 360 (5th Cir.
   2010).
            Harris next argues that the district court erred in assessing a two-level
   increase under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing a weapon. As noted
   above, Harris’s offense level was based on the application of the § 4B1.1(a)
   career offender enhancement. The district court’s assessment of the two-
   level § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement thus had no effect on the calculation of his
   offense level or Guidelines range. Harris’s challenge to the weapons
   enhancement is therefore moot. See United States v. Mankins, 135 F.3d 946,
   950 (5th Cir. 1998).
                                                                     AFFIRMED.

                                            2