Court Opinion

ID: 9408793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 18:00:45.096484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:46.796982
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10855        Document: 00516819181             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023

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

                                     ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                     July 13, 2023
                                       No. 22-10855                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                         Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Paris Hite Kimberling,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:22-CR-10-3
                     ______________________________

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Southwick and Oldham, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Paris Hite Kimberling was convicted of conspiring to possess with
   intent to distribute methamphetamine. On appeal, Kimberling claims the
   district court erred by finding that the offense involved methamphetamine
   imported from Mexico and by applying the corresponding drug-importation
   enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5). We disagree and affirm.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10855     Document: 00516819181          Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                   No. 22-10855

                                        I.
                                       A.
         Paris Kimberling sold methamphetamine to undercover Texas
   Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) agents four times between January 20
   and February 23, 2021. A Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”)
   laboratory calculated the drug weight at 41.6 grams of 99% pure
   methamphetamine for the first transaction; 27.7 grams of 96% pure
   methamphetamine for the second; 56 grams of 98% pure methamphetamine
   for the third; and 55.56 grams of 97% pure methamphetamine for the fourth.
   Then, on March 10, Kimberling agreed to sell 4 more ounces (roughly 113
   grams) to an undercover DPS agent. Upon arrival, DPS agents arrested
   Kimberling and Jaycie Jo Burkett—Kimberling’s then girlfriend and now co-
   defendant. The DPS agents seized the agreed-upon methamphetamine,
   which DEA lab testing determined to weigh 107.2 grams and to be 99% pure.
   The agents also discovered an additional .259 grams of 100% pure
   methamphetamine in Burkett’s purse. Kimberling was eventually held
   accountable for 281.59 grams of methamphetamine (actual).
         In a post-arrest interview, Kimberling waived his Miranda rights and
   identified co-defendant Lovick Haldon Stikeleather as his supplier.
   Specifically, Kimberling said he purchased methamphetamine from
   Stikeleather approximately six times between late December 2020 and early
   March 2021—in quantities matching that which Kimberling sold to DPS
   agents over the same period. Stikeleather himself dealt in multi-kilogram
   quantities of methamphetamine and admittedly received some of his product
   “from at least one Mexican based source.”
                                       B.
         Kimberling pled guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with
   intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21

                                        2
Case: 22-10855      Document: 00516819181           Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                     No. 22-10855

   U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(B). The presentence report
   calculated Kimberling’s offense level as 31 and his criminal-history category
   as IV, yielding a Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months in prison and 4 to 5
   years of supervised release. The offense level of 31 reflected, in relevant part,
   the application of a 2-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) for
   offenses involving imported methamphetamine.
          Kimberling objected. He claimed the offense level should instead be
   29, which would produce a Guidelines range of 121 to 151 months.
   Kimberling argued that the § 2D1.1(b)(5) importation enhancement should
   not   apply   because    there    was    insufficient   evidence   linking   the
   methamphetamine to Mexico. The district court disagreed, overruled the
   objection, and sentenced Kimberling to 151 months’ imprisonment and 4
   years’ supervised release.
          Kimberling timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
   § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
                                           II.
          On appeal, Kimberling argues that the district court erred by imposing
   the § 2D1.1(b)(5) importation enhancement. See Gall v. United States, 552
   U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (explaining that district courts must avoid “significant
   procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
   Guidelines range”). Section 2D1.1(b)(5) provides for a 2-point increase in a
   defendant’s offense level if “the offense involved the importation
   of . . . methamphetamine.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5)(A). The importation
   enhancement applies regardless of whether the defendant or his supplier
   imported the drugs. See United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir.
   2014) (per curiam). It likewise applies “even if the defendant did not know
   that the methamphetamine was imported.” United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d
   548, 554 (5th Cir. 2012).

                                           3
Case: 22-10855        Document: 00516819181            Page: 4     Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                        No. 22-10855

          Whether an offense involves the importation of methamphetamine is
   a factual determination. United States v. Gentry, 941 F.3d 767, 792 (5th Cir.
   2019). That means that the Government “must prove the facts underlying
   [the] enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence,” Serfasss, 684 F.3d
   at 553; that the defendant can attempt to show “the [Government’s]
   information is materially untrue, inaccurate[,] or unreliable,” United States
   v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted); and
   that in making its ultimate decision, the district court can consider all
   “relevant information without regard to its admissibility under the rules of
   evidence,” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a).
          It also means that we review Kimberling’s preserved challenge to the
   district court’s factual determination for clear error. See United States v.
   Brune, 991 F.3d 652, 667 (5th Cir. 2021) (“We review the district court’s
   factual determination that an offense involved the importation of
   methamphetamine for clear error.” (quotation omitted)). “There is no clear
   error where the district court’s finding is plausible in light of the record as a
   whole.” United States v. Rico, 864 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 2017). Accordingly,
   we   will   only     reverse   the     district     court’s   application   of   the
   § 2D1.1(b)(5) importation enhancement if our review of the entire record
   leaves us “with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
   committed.” United States v. Arayatanon, 980 F.3d 444, 453 (5th Cir. 2020)
   (quotation omitted).
          Kimberling has not made such a showing. He argues that Stikeleather,
   his supplier, had multiple methamphetamine sources during the relevant
   timeframe. Thus, Kimberling claims, Stikeleather’s admission that he
   purchased drugs “from at least one” Mexican source cannot by itself support
   the inference that Kimberling likely received imported methamphetamine
   from Stikeleather.

                                             4
Case: 22-10855     Document: 00516819181           Page: 5   Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                    No. 22-10855

          Kimberling relies primarily on one unpublished case: United States v.
   Nimerfroh, 716 F. App’x 311 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). There, the district
   court levied the § 2D1.1(b)(5) importation enhancement based on
   Nimerfroh’s statement that he “was dealing with the ‘cartel.’” Id. at 313. We
   held that “without more, the mere reference to a cartel is insufficient to
   prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Nimerfroh was dealing with
   imported methamphetamine.” Id. at 316. Kimberling reasons there was
   similarly insufficient context in his case for the district court to draw the
   inference that some of the methamphetamine had likely been imported.
          We disagree. Nimerfroh stands for the unremarkable proposition that
   not all circumstantial evidence is by itself sufficient to support the
   § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement. That is as true here as it is for the myriad other
   factual determinations courts make daily. Sometimes there is direct evidence
   of importation. See, e.g., United States v. Castillo-Curiel, 579 F. App’x 239,
   239 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (defendant’s suppliers received drug loads
   in Mexico, coordinated trafficking routes within the United States, and had
   the proceeds returned to Mexico in hidden vehicle compartments); United
   States v. Solorzano, 832 F. App’x 276, 283 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam)
   (defendant’s cousin testified that defendant had “obtained [the]
   methamphetamine from ‘the Mexicans’”). Other times, courts must decide
   whether the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence clears the
   “preponderance of the evidence” threshold. Serfasss, 684 F.3d at 553; see,
   e.g., Brune, 991 F.3d at 666–67 (defendant sold large amounts of meth, and
   his supplier was a known member of a cartel that borrows its name from a
   Mexican state); Arayatanon, 980 F.3d at 452 (holding that the high purity of
   the drugs alongside defendant’s known trips to Mexico were sufficient to
   affirm the importation enhancement).

                                         5
Case: 22-10855     Document: 00516819181           Page: 6   Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                    No. 22-10855

          Here, unlike in Nimerfroh, there are three strong and independent
   indications that at least some of Kimberling’s methamphetamine was
   imported. Together, they compel affirmance.
          First, drug purity. In United States v. Arayatanon, we recognized that
   methamphetamine’s purity is probative of its origin. See 980 F.3d at 452
   (“DEA agents advised the probation officer that the methamphetamine ‘was
   likely imported into the United States’ because ‘there are no known labs in
   the United States that can manufacture methamphetamine of this purity
   level.’”). Kimberling’s offense involved 96–100% pure methamphetamine,
   which is strong evidence that at least some of it was manufactured abroad.
   Cf. United States v. Armendariz, 2022 WL 7284002, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 12,
   2022) (per curiam) (97–99% purity considered probative of foreign origin);
   United States v. Cadena, 642 F. App’x 306, 307 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam)
   (98.6%); Arayatanon, 980 F.3d at 452 (100%).
          Next, drug quantity. We have previously explained that the greater the
   volume of drugs involved in an offense, the greater the likelihood those drugs
   were manufactured on foreign soil. In United States v. Brune, for example, the
   fact that “Brune sold at least 50–75 pounds [or roughly 23–34 kilograms] of
   meth over nine months . . . support[ed] the inference that some of Brune’s
   drugs were imported.” 991 F.3d at 667; see also Armendariz, 2022 WL
   7284002, at *1 (14 kilograms considered probative of foreign origin). The
   inference is even stronger here: Kimberling acknowledges that his supplier,
   Stikeleather, purchased at least 199 kilograms of methamphetamine at the
   same time Kimberling was sourcing his methamphetamine from Stikeleather.
   That’s more than five times the amount of methamphetamine we found
   indicative of importation in Brune.
          Last, drug nexity. To support applying the drug-importation
   enhancement, the Government will often point to evidence of a nexus

                                         6
Case: 22-10855     Document: 00516819181          Page: 7   Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                   No. 22-10855

   between the drugs involved in the offense and foreign producers or
   distributers. In Arayatanon, for example, the defendant and those associated
   with him had taken various trips to Mexico. 980 F.3d at 452. In Armendariz,
   “several men from Michocacan, Mexico came looking for the drugs.” 2022
   WL 7284002, at *1. And in Brune, defendant’s supplier was a member of the
   Michoacán Cartel based in Dallas—a cartel that “borrows its name from a
   Mexican state.” 991 F.3d at 667. Here, Kimberling’s supplier admittedly
   received drugs “from at least one Mexican based source.” Especially in
   conjunction with the fact that Kimberling purchased methamphetamine from
   Stikeleather on six different occasions between December 2020 and March
   2021, Stikeleather’s admitted connection to Mexican methamphetamine
   sources increases the likelihood that at least some of the drugs Kimberling
   purchased were imported.
         Altogether, the purity of Kimberling’s drugs, the volume at which his
   supplier dealt, and the known nexity of his supplier to Mexican sources
   strongly support applying the § 2D1.1(b)(5) importation enhancement.
   Kimberling protests that none of these indicia would alone warrant applying
   the enhancement. But that is not the legal standard. The legal standard is
   whether, in viewing the record as a whole, we are left “with a definite and
   firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Arayatanon, 980 F.3d
   at 453. And here, the record strongly supports—rather than firmly
   undermines—our confidence in the district court’s factual finding.
         AFFIRMED.

                                        7