Court Opinion

ID: 9908185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 01:00:33.959255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:58.587359
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30381         Document: 00516994488             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/07/2023

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

                                      ____________                                 FILED
                                                                            December 7, 2023
                                       No. 23-30381                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                              Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Felecia B. Walker,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 5:21-CR-162-2
                      ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Felecia B. Walker pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and to
   possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and to possessing a
   firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
   §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). The district
   court sentenced Walker at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range to 210

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30381      Document: 00516994488          Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/07/2023

                                    No. 23-30381

   months of imprisonment for the drug offense; imposed the consecutive 60-
   month statutory minimum term of imprisonment for the firearm offense; and
   imposed concurrent five-year terms of supervised release on both counts.
   Walker challenges only her sentence on appeal, arguing that the district court
   clearly erred by applying a two-level “drug premises” enhancement under
   U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), and that the district court plainly erred by imposing
   a special condition of supervised release requiring that she submit to a mental
   health assessment and mental-health treatment.
          Because Walker challenged the application of the § 2D1.1(b)(12)
   enhancement on the same grounds that she raises here, we review the district
   court’s interpretation or application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo
   and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Muniz, 803 F.3d
   709, 712 (5th Cir. 2015). The application of § 2D1.1(b)(12) is a factual
   question we review for clear error. See United States v. Guzman-Reyes, 853
   F.3d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 2017).
          The district court was free to rely on unrebutted facts set forth in the
   presentence report in making its findings of fact under the Guidelines. See
   United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012). Based on those
   facts, the district court could have plausibly inferred that the receipt and
   storage of drugs for distribution was one of the primary or principal uses for
   Walker’s residence and was not merely incidental to the use of the residence.
   See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.17); United States v. Galicia, 983 F.3d
   842, 844 (5th Cir. 2020) (explaining that the “primary uses need not be
   equivalent” and that there is a “low bar for establishing a primary use for a
   premises”). The fact that Walker also used the premises as a place to live
   does not require a different result. See Galicia, 983 F.3d at 844. Because the
   district court did not clearly err by applying the two-level sentencing
   enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(12) based on Walker’s use of her residence,

                                         2
Case: 23-30381      Document: 00516994488             Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/07/2023

                                       No. 23-30381

   we do not address whether the enhancement was warranted, as well, based
   on Walker’s use of her business premises in the drug-trafficking activity.
          For the first time, Walker challenges the special condition of
   supervised release that she submit to a mental assessment and mental-health
   treatment. Because she had an opportunity to object to the condition in the
   district court but failed to do so, our review is for plain error only. See United
   States v. Martinez, 47 F.4th 364, 366 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2022); Puckett v. United
   States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
          The district court committed no clear or obvious error in imposing the
   condition. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Alvarez, 880 F.3d 236,
   240 (5th Cir. 2018). The presentence report recommended the condition
   and included information regarding Walker’s mental health under the
   “mental and emotional health” section, to which Walker did not object.
   That information reflects that the special condition is consistent with the
   relevant policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission and is
   reasonably related to Walker’s history and characteristics or the need for
   treatment. See id. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(5), p.s.; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); 18
   U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1).
          AFFIRMED.

                                            3