Court Opinion

ID: 9556102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 00:00:29.055382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:23.806851
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50317         Document: 00516859034             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50317
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                August 15, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Anthony Deshawn Howard,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:21-CR-85-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Anthony Deshawn Howard pleaded guilty to:                       three counts of
   possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation of
   21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); and one count of possession of a firearm in
   furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50317      Document: 00516859034           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                     No. 22-50317

   § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).     He was sentenced to, inter alia, 147-months’
   imprisonment, three-years’ supervised release, and $2,000 in fines.
          Howard first asserts that, due to technical error, his rearraignment
   hearing was not recorded and a transcript unavailable. As a result, he insists
   there is nothing to show his guilty plea was validly entered. Our court
   previously granted the Government’s motion to remand to district court to
   reconstruct the record of the rearraignment proceeding. Howard did not
   object to that reconstructed record, and the Government asserts he now
   concedes his challenge to the absence of a record of the rearraignment
   proceeding is moot.     In his reply brief, Howard does not dispute the
   Government’s assertion. The challenge is moot.
          Next, Howard maintains the written factual basis for his plea was
   insufficient to establish his guilt on the three drug counts because it does not
   show he admitted to knowing: the identity of the substances discovered by
   police; or that the substances were controlled substances on the federal drug
   schedules.
          Because Howard did not raise this issue in district court, review is only
   for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir.
   2012). Under that standard, Howard must show a forfeited plain error (clear-
   or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected
   his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If
   he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain
   error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness,
   integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted).
          “[E]xamining the entire record for facts supporting the guilty plea
   and drawing reasonable inferences from those facts to determine whether the
   conduct to which the defendant admits satisfies the elements of the offense
   charged”, the record supports the reasonable inference that Howard knew

                                          2
Case: 22-50317      Document: 00516859034           Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                     No. 22-50317

   the identity of the substances he possessed. United States v. Escajeda, 8 F.4th
   423, 426 (5th Cir. 2021); see also McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186, 192
   & n.1 (2015) (explaining defendant satisfies § 841(a)(1) knowledge
   requirement if he: “knew he possessed a substance listed on the schedules,
   even if he did not know which substance it was”; or, “knew the identity of
   the substance he possessed”); United States v. Crittenden, 46 F.4th 292, 298–
   99 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (applying McFadden and explaining
   defendant “needed to know only that he possessed a controlled substance”).
   Accordingly, Howard fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious error in the
   court’s accepting his guilty plea. E.g., Escajeda, 8 F.4th at 426.
          Howard additionally contends the imposition of $2,000 in fines was
   unreasonable in the light of his lack of earning capacity and the burden the
   fines would place on his dependents. We pretermit a discussion of whether
   he sufficiently preserved this issue because, even on review for abuse of
   discretion, he has not shown error. E.g., United States v. Pacheco-Alvarado,
   782 F.3d 213, 220–21 (5th Cir. 2015).
          Because the court adopted the presentence investigation report (PSR)
   and imposed a below-Guidelines fine, it was not required to make specific
   findings under these circumstances. E.g., United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d
   347, 351–52 (5th Cir. 2008) (explaining when “district court [does] not reject
   or depart from the adopted PSR’s recommendation on a fine . . . the court
   [is] not required to make specific findings regarding [defendant’s] ability to
   pay the fine”). Additionally, Howard fails to overcome the presumption of
   reasonableness applicable to the fines. Pacheco-Alvarado, 782 F.3d at 219–20
   (“For properly calculated, within-Guidelines sentences, we employ a
   presumption of reasonableness, which is rebutted only upon a showing that
   the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant
   weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it

                                           3
Case: 22-50317     Document: 00516859034           Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                    No. 22-50317

   represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.”
   (alterations omitted) (citation omitted)).
          Finally, Howard asserts it is unclear when he must pay his fines.
   Unless a sentencing court specifies otherwise, a fine is to be paid
   immediately. See 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1); United States v. Diehl, 848 F.3d
   629, 631 (5th Cir. 2017) (stating § 3572(d)(1) establishes default rule
   requiring defendant make payment immediately unless district court
   specifies otherwise). Howard concedes that, based on the oral sentence, his
   fines would be due immediately, but he contends several aspects of the
   written judgment suggest he instead is required to pay his fines while
   incarcerated or while on supervised release. We disagree that the written
   judgment is ambiguous. See United States v. Buck, 470 F. App’x 304, 305 (5th
   Cir. 2012) (noting “immediate payment” does not entail “immediate
   payment in full”; rather, it requires “payment to the extent that the
   defendant can make it in good faith, beginning immediately” (citation
   omitted)); see also United States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2005)
   (noting, in restitution context, “payable immediately” does not require
   defendant to “make full restitution at once”).
          AFFIRMED.

                                         4