Court Opinion

ID: 9892472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 00:00:35.282172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:59.898219
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60211        Document: 00516940785             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/23/2023

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

                                      No. 23-60211                                    FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                           October 23, 2023
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Gregory Jamal Williams,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                              USDC No. 3:20-CR-147-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Following his guilty plea conviction on multiple drug-trafficking
   charges, Gregory Jamal Williams was sentenced within the guidelines range
   to 360 months of imprisonment. On appeal, he contends that the sentencing
   enhancements he received for importation of methamphetamine, pursuant to
   U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5), and for being a manager or supervisor, pursuant to

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60211      Document: 00516940785           Page: 2     Date Filed: 10/23/2023

                                     No. 23-60211

   U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), were error. He also contends that the district court
   erred in refusing to depart downwardly based on § 2D1.1’s harsher treatment
   of “ice” as compared to actual methamphetamine, which treatment he
   asserts lacks an empirical basis and results in unwanted sentencing
   disparities.
          Williams briefs no argument challenging the district court’s
   assessment of a two-level enhancement for possessing a dangerous weapon
   under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), and he likewise briefs no argument challenging
   the district court’s drug-quantity calculations under the methamphetamine
   Guideline. Accordingly, he has abandoned any such challenge. See United
   States v. Still, 102 F.3d 118, 122 n.7 (5th Cir. 1996); Beasley v. McCotter,
   798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). Although he additionally asserts that the
   district court violated his due process rights, his right to the effective
   assistance of counsel, and his Eighth Amendment rights by basing his
   sentence on “ice” rather than actual methamphetamine, the arguments are
   wholly conclusional and inadequately briefed and thus will not be considered.
   See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433,
   446-47 (5th Cir. 2010); see also Beasley, 798 F.2d at 118.
          Inasmuch as Williams contends that the importation enhancement is
   error because the Government did not present direct evidence that the drugs
   he sold in fact came from a Mexican source or that he knew that they were
   imported, the argument is patently incorrect.                See United States
   v. Arayatanon, 980 F.3d 444, 452 (5th Cir. 2020) (upholding importation
   enhancement based on circumstantial evidence). Special Agent Rayner’s
   testimony at sentencing provided sufficient proof of strong indicators that the
   drugs involved in the offense came from Mexico, including testimony that
   the high purity, high volume, low cost, and unvarying color and quality of the
   drugs were consistent with the large-scale production of methamphetamine
   in Mexico, which testimony was corroborated by the DEA reports the

                                          2
Case: 23-60211       Document: 00516940785          Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/23/2023

                                     No. 23-60211

   Government had submitted prior to sentencing. Special Agent Rayner also
   presented proof that Williams and his girlfriend had traveled from Jackson,
   Mississippi, to the border town of El Paso, indicating a nexus to Mexican
   supply, and he further explained that Williams had ventured into the sale of
   fentanyl-laced heroin, a practice promoted by Mexican drug cartels.
            Williams briefs no argument challenging the district court’s reliance
   on this evidence to support a plausible inference of importation, and he
   specifically fails to demonstrate that the Government’s evidence was
   inaccurate or untrue. See United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787, 796
   (5th Cir. 2015); see also Still, 102 F.3d at 122 n.7; Beasley, 798 F.2d at 118.
   Given Special Agent Rayner’s testimony, the district court’s finding of
   importation is plausible in light of the record as a whole, and this court will
   therefore uphold the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement. See United States v. Brune,
   991 F.3d 652, 667 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 755 (2022);
   Arayatanon, 980 F.3d at 452; United States v. Rico, 864 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir.
   2017).
            Next, Williams challenges the district court’s assessment of a three-
   level enhancement for his role in the offense. He urges that he was a mere
   participant in the drug-trafficking conspiracy and that did not set prices or
   direct transactions and thus was not a manager or supervisor for purposes of
   § 3B1.1(b).
            These conclusional assertions are directly refuted by the record,
   specifically Special Agent Rayner’s testimony that, in four controlled
   purchases with a confidential informant (CI), Williams directly negotiated
   the terms of the sale, including the quantity, type, and price of the drugs,
   dictated the places where the transactions would occur, and commanded
   others, including his son, to deliver the drugs to the CI.         Given this
   unrebutted evidence, see United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 329 (5th Cir.

                                          3
Case: 23-60211      Document: 00516940785           Page: 4   Date Filed: 10/23/2023

                                     No. 23-60211

   1998), the district court did not clearly err in finding that Williams exercised
   supervisory or managerial responsibility, and this court must similarly uphold
   the § 3B1.1(b) enhancement. United States v. Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d 278,
   281-83 (5th Cir. 2015).
          Although Williams’s argument that § 2D1.1 is not empirically
   grounded and results in unwarranted sentencing disparities implicates the
   substantive reasonableness of his sentence, his arguments are insufficient to
   rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-guidelines
   sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).
   Whatever appropriate deviations it may permit or encourage at the discretion
   of the district judge, “Kimbrough does not force district or appellate courts
   into a piece-by-piece analysis of the empirical grounding behind each part of
   the sentencing guidelines.” United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th
   Cir. 2009) (citing Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 109 (2007)).
   Additionally, Kimbrough does not disturb the presumption of reasonableness
   given to his within-guidelines sentence “even if the relevant Guideline is not
   empirically based.” United States v. Lara, 23 F.4th 459, 485 (5th Cir.) (citing
   United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366–67 (5th Cir. 2009)),
   cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2790 (2022). The district court considered Williams’s
   argument that there is no empirical basis for the methamphetamine
   guideline’s purity-distinctions but declined to deviate from the Guidelines on
   that basis. Accordingly, Williams fails to demonstrate that his sentence is
   substantively unreasonable. See Lara, 23 F.4th at 485-86; United States v.
   Rebulloza, 16 F.4th 480, 485 (5th Cir. 2021).
          To the extent that Williams argues that the application of the
   Guideline results in unwarranted sentencing disparities, that argument, too,
   is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-
   guidelines sentence. “[T]he need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
   among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar

                                          4
Case: 23-60211     Document: 00516940785           Page: 5   Date Filed: 10/23/2023

                                    No. 23-60211

   conduct,” is a factor that district courts must consider in fashioning a
   sentence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), and the district court in this case
   expressly considered that factor, concluding that a downward variance would
   in fact result in a sentencing disparity with Williams’s codefendant son,
   whose sentence had already been calculated under the same Guideline. The
   record shows that the district court considered Williams’s arguments for
   leniency, along with all of the § 3553(a) factors, in imposing sentence.
   Williams does not argue, and the record does not reflect, that his sentence
   fails to account for a factor that should receive significant weight, gives
   significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear
   error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186.
          Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                         5