Court Opinion

ID: 9390235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 13:00:36.213767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:33.107663
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-14136    Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/27/2023   Page: 1 of 18

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 21-14136
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
        versus
        DEVONNE L. WALKER,
        a.k.a. Dee Dee,
        a.k.a. Jimmy,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 21-14136     Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 04/27/2023    Page: 2 of 18

        2                     Opinion of the Court                21-14136

                   D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cr-00040-RBD-PRL-1
                          ____________________

        Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Devonne Walker appeals his sentence of 300 months’ im-
        prisonment, which was imposed after he pled guilty to one count
        of conspiring with others to possess with the intent to distribute
        various controlled substances. Walker argues that the district
        court made two errors in calculating his sentence: First, he argues
        that the court erred when it applied a four-level enhancement un-
        der the Sentencing Guidelines for Walker’s role as an organizer or
        leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more partici-
        pants or was otherwise extensive. Second, he contends that the
        court improperly applied a two-level enhancement under the Sen-
        tencing Guidelines for possessing a dangerous weapon in connec-
        tion with a drug offense. Because the record supports the district
        court’s application of these enhancements, we affirm Walker’s
        sentence.
                                        I.
               Walker first appeared on the government’s radar in March
        2018, when an informant indicated that Walker and another man,
        Chauncy Stackhouse, were selling large quantities of cocaine and
        methamphetamine. At that time, Walker and Stackhouse were
        selling approximately two kilograms of cocaine per month, which
        they obtained from a supplier in Orlando, Florida.
USCA11 Case: 21-14136     Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 04/27/2023   Page: 3 of 18

        21-14136              Opinion of the Court                      3

               In July 2018, government agents received a tip that Walker,
        Stackhouse, and two unnamed associates were flying from Tam-
        pa, Florida to Puerto Rico to purchase cocaine. Agents stopped
        Walker, Stackhouse, and their associates at the Tampa airport and
        seized $80,000 in cash—cash which belonged to Walker and
        agents believed was intended to be used to buy cocaine. During
        this time period, Walker and Stackhouse were receiving between
        four and six kilograms of cocaine each month from their Puerto
        Rican supplier. The supplier in Puerto Rico transferred the co-
        caine from Puerto Rico to Florida, then Walker and Stackhouse
        picked up the cocaine once it arrived in Florida. Walker always
        paid for the cocaine.
               After a few months of working with the Puerto Rican sup-
        plier, Walker and Stackhouse decided to find a cheaper source for
        the drugs. A friend, known to Stackhouse only as “Chad,” offered
        to serve as the middleman connecting Walker and Stackhouse
        with a drug supplier in Phoenix, Arizona. Walker and Stackhouse
        eventually decided to cut Chad out of the deal and work directly
        with their new Arizona contact. From that point on, Walker
        managed all the dealings with the supplier; he arranged which
        drugs would be shipped from Arizona to Florida and negotiated
        the drug prices.
              On their first visit to Arizona, Walker and Stackhouse
        along with an associate named Tyler Reed (also known as “Kyle”)
        met Kanisha Savage at a gas station in Phoenix. They convinced
        Savage to buy marijuana from a dispensary for them. Walker
USCA11 Case: 21-14136     Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 04/27/2023    Page: 4 of 18

        4                     Opinion of the Court                21-14136

        gave her money for the purchase. After she purchased the drugs,
        Savage and the three men smoked marijuana together and ex-
        changed phone numbers.
                Walker texted Savage a month after their first encounter,
        asking whether she knew of any Airbnb rentals in the area be-
        cause he would be returning to Phoenix soon. He also asked Sav-
        age if she would continue buying marijuana from dispensaries for
        him. She agreed. When Walker, Stackhouse, and Reed returned
        to Arizona, Walker once again paid Savage to obtain marijuana.
        This relationship between Walker and Savage continued for some
        time. Eventually, Walker began requesting that Savage bring him
        more marijuana than she was able to purchase through dispensa-
        ries. Because she could no longer get Walker the amount of mari-
        juana he wanted, Savage introduced Walker to Tymane Hamil-
        ton, a known marijuana dealer. Walker and Hamilton entered in-
        to an arrangement.
               At some point over the course of their relationship, Walker
        asked Savage to drop off packages at the post office for him in ex-
        change for money. Savage agreed, and their arrangement played
        out as follows: Walker would inform Savage when she could ex-
        pect packages and where to pick them up. One of two men would
        bring sealed packages to wherever Walker directed Savage to go
        and pay Savage $100 upon giving her the parcels. Walker would
        send Savage addresses located in the Middle District of Florida
        and direct her to send the packages to those addresses. Once Sav-
USCA11 Case: 21-14136     Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 04/27/2023   Page: 5 of 18

        21-14136              Opinion of the Court                      5

        age dropped off the packages with the United States Postal Ser-
        vice (“USPS”), Walker would pay Savage $150 through Cash App.
               Under Walker’s direction, many packages were mailed
        from Arizona to Florida. Between July 2018 and October 2019,
        USPS identified more than 50 parcels sent from Arizona to Florida
        containing cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and ma-
        rijuana.
               Savage also received packages on Walker’s behalf. An asso-
        ciate of Walker’s named Kathy Stivale sent Savage several pack-
        ages from Florida. Walker let Savage know in advance when she
        could expect a package from Stivale; Walker also told Savage
        what to do with Stivale’s packages. The same men who gave Sav-
        age packages for Walker collected Stivale’s packages.
                Savage met Stivale when Stivale accompanied Walker on a
        trip to Phoenix. During that trip, Stivale was responsible for ar-
        ranging Walker’s transportation. On one occasion, Walker had
        Savage and Stivale carry cash and money orders for him on a
        flight from Orlando to Phoenix.
              In addition to handling packages and carrying money for
        Walker, Savage also arranged for Walker to buy a firearm from a
        man she knew in Phoenix.
               As the investigation continued, agents became aware of a
        residence in Phoenix on 42nd Avenue. They believed it to be a
        “stash house” used by Walker, Savage, Hamilton, and other
        members of the conspiracy. Agents observed Walker bringing
USCA11 Case: 21-14136       Document: 41-1        Date Filed: 04/27/2023      Page: 6 of 18

        6                        Opinion of the Court                    21-14136

        shipping supplies into the house and learned that Hamilton and
        his girlfriend resided there.
               In October 2019, agents executed a search warrant for the
        Arizona residence. They seized nine USPS parcels labeled with
        addresses in the Middle District of Florida and an AM-15 rifle. In-
        side the packages, agents found a total of 49.4 kilograms of mari-
        juana and 2.7 kilograms of methamphetamine.
               In June of 2021, Walker was indicted for conspiracy to pos-
        sess with intent to distribute various controlled substances: five
        kilograms or more of cocaine; 500 grams or more of metham-
        phetamine; one kilogram or more of heroin; 40 grams or more of
        fentanyl; and more than 50 kilograms or marijuana.1
               About two weeks later, local Florida police officers execut-
        ed an arrest warrant for Walker. Officers observed Walker arrive
        on the scene in his sister’s car. After Walker exited the car, a dep-
        uty approached the car to confirm there were no other occupants
        who might threaten officer safety. While looking into the vehicle,
        the deputy noticed a marijuana blunt in plain view in the front
        seat center console. Officers decided to search the vehicle. On the
        floorboard behind the passenger seat, they saw a drawstring bag.
        Inside the bag they found a 9 mm handgun, drug paraphernalia,

        1 Savage and Hamilton were charged as co-defendants. In a separate criminal
        case, Stackhouse was charged with possession with intent to distribute
        methamphetamine.
USCA11 Case: 21-14136        Document: 41-1       Date Filed: 04/27/2023       Page: 7 of 18

        21-14136                 Opinion of the Court                             7

        and substances that the officers suspected to be marijuana, heroin,
        cocaine, fentanyl, and methamphetamine.
               Walker pled guilty to the conspiracy charged in the indict-
        ment. Before Walker’s sentencing hearing, a probation officer
        prepared a presentencing investigation report (“PSI”). The PSI set
        forth facts about how the conspiracy operated and Walker’s role
        in the conspiracy. It reported that Walker was accountable for the
        distribution of 32,460 grams of “ice,” 2 51,631 grams of marijuana,
        79 grams of fentanyl, and 125 grams of heroin. Based on these
        drug quantities, the PSI assigned Walker a base offense level of 38.
        The PSI found that Walker should receive a four-level enhance-
        ment under U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(a) for being an organizer or leader of
        a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was
        otherwise extensive. The PSI also recommended a two-level en-
        hancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) because a dangerous
        weapon (in this case, a firearm) was possessed in connection with
        a drug offense. The PSI calculated Walker’s adjusted offense level
        as 44. It also noted that Walker was eligible for a reduction in his
        offense level for acceptance of responsibility.

        2 The Sentencing Guidelines define “ice” as “a mixture or substance contain-
        ing d-methamphetamine hydrochloride of at least 80% purity.” U.S.S.G.
        § 2D1.1, note C.
USCA11 Case: 21-14136        Document: 41-1        Date Filed: 04/27/2023       Page: 8 of 18

        8                         Opinion of the Court                    21-14136

               Walker objected to several portions of the PSI. He objected
        to some of the paragraphs that described the offense conduct. He
        also objected to the role and dangerous weapons enhancements.
                At the sentencing hearing, the district court overruled
        these objections. It adopted the PSI’s description of the offense
        conduct. The district court found that the government had shown
        by a preponderance of the evidence that Walker was an organizer
        or leader such as to warrant a § 3B1.1(a) enhancement. The dis-
        trict court was also satisfied that the rifle found at the 42nd Ave-
        nue residence in Arizona and the handgun seized at Walker’s ar-
        rest justified a dangerous weapons enhancement under U.S.S.G.
        § 2D1.1(b)(1).
               After accepting the PSI’s calculation of the offense level and
        applying a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility,
        the district court found that Walker had a total offense level of 42
        and a criminal history category of VI, yielding a sentence range of
        360 months’ to life imprisonment. 3 The district court sentenced
        Walker to 300 months’ imprisonment.
               Walker timely appealed to this Court.

        3 The court found that Walker was eligible for the career-offender enhance-
        ment. Under the career-offender enhancement, Walker’s offense level would
        have been 37 before any reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Because
        this offense level was not “greater than the offense level otherwise applica-
        ble,” the district court did not rely on the career-offender enhancement to
        calculate Walker’s guidelines range. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b).
USCA11 Case: 21-14136        Document: 41-1        Date Filed: 04/27/2023        Page: 9 of 18

        21-14136                  Opinion of the Court                              9

                                             II.
                We accept a district court’s factual findings at sentencing
        unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d
        1214, 1230 (11th Cir. 2010). A factual finding is clearly erroneous
        when, upon review of the evidence, the Court is “left with a defi-
        nite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
        United States v. Foster, 155 F.3d 1329, 1331 (11th Cir. 1998).
        Whether a defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal ac-
        tivity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise ex-
        tensive is a factual finding we review for clear error. 4 United
        States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344, 1355 (11th Cir. 2005). The same
        is true for whether a dangerous weapon was possessed in connec-
        tion with a drug crime. United States v. Stallings, 463 F.3d 1218,
        1220 (11th Cir. 2006).
               We review a district court’s application of the Sentencing
        Guidelines to the facts de novo. United States v. Smith, 22 F.4th
        1236, 1242 (11th Cir. 2022).

        4 The government argues that the district court’s determination as to Walk-
        er’s § 3B1.1 role enhancement should be reviewed for plain error, arguing
        that Walker did not raise the specific issues he advances here in the district
        court. See United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1320 (11th Cir. 2000).
        We assume Walker sufficiently raised the issue at the district court level and
        proceed under the clear-error standard because the result we reach is the
        same under either standard of review.
USCA11 Case: 21-14136     Document: 41-1        Date Filed: 04/27/2023   Page: 10 of 18

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 21-14136

                                         III.
               Walker challenges the district court’s application of the
        leadership role and dangerous weapons enhancements in calculat-
        ing his sentencing range.
               We affirm the district court’s application of a four-level
        § 3B1.1(a) role enhancement because the record supports the dis-
        trict court’s conclusion that Walker led or organized a criminal
        activity that involved at least five participants or was otherwise
        extensive. We also affirm the application of a § 2D1.1(b)(1) dan-
        gerous weapons enhancement because a co-conspirator possessed
        a firearm in connection with the conspiracy, and the possession
        was reasonably foreseeable in light of the volume and value of the
        drugs involved in the offense.
                                         A.
               The Sentencing Guidelines mandate a four-level increase to
        a defendant’s offense level if (1) he “was an organizer or leader of
        a criminal activity” (2) “that involved five or more participants or
        was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). These are two sep-
        arate and distinct requirements for a sentence enhancement un-
        der § 3B1.1(a). United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022, 1026
        (11th Cir. 2009).
               On appeal, Walker challenges the district court’s evalua-
        tion of the second prong—that the criminal activity involved ei-
        ther five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. Walker
        argues that the district court failed to articulate its findings as to
USCA11 Case: 21-14136        Document: 41-1         Date Filed: 04/27/2023            Page: 11 of 18

        21-14136                   Opinion of the Court                                11

        this prong with sufficient specificity. He points out that the dis-
        trict court did not explicitly name the five people it considered
        participants in the criminal activity, nor did it specify whether the
        application of § 3B1.1(a) was based on there being at least five par-
        ticipants in the criminal activity or on the criminal activity being
        otherwise extensive. Instead, at the sentencing hearing, the dis-
        trict court simply stated that it “f[ound] the Government ha[d]
        met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that
        Mr. Walker was an organizer, manager, or leader of the organiza-
        tion such as to warrant the four-level enhancement under
        3B1.1(a).” Doc. 134 at 186. 5
              This was all the district court needed to say. Walker’s ar-
        gument that the district court’s failure to make specific findings
        warrants reversal has no basis in our precedent. As this Court has
        previously held,
                [i]n making the ultimate determination of the de-
                fendant’s role in the offense, the sentencing judge
                has no duty to make any specific subsidiary factual
                findings. So long as the district court’s decision is
                supported by the record and the court clearly re-
                solves any disputed factual issues, a simple statement
                of the district court’s conclusion is sufficient.

        5 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries in this case.
USCA11 Case: 21-14136     Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/27/2023    Page: 12 of 18

        12                     Opinion of the Court                21-14136

        United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 939 (11th Cir.
        1999) (en banc) (emphasis in original) (internal citation omitted)
        (regarding mitigating-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2).
               There is no question here that the district court resolved all
        disputed factual issues. And whether the § 3B1.1(a) leadership-role
        enhancement was based on the number of participants or the ex-
        tent of the criminal activity, the record supports the district
        court’s conclusion.
               First, as to the number of participants, the record shows by
        a preponderance of the evidence that at least five people partici-
        pated in the conspiracy to possess controlled substances with the
        intent to distribute. “A ‘participant’ is a person who is criminally
        responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have
        been convicted.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. 1. Walker and his two co-
        defendants, Kanisha Savage and Tymane Hamilton, are partici-
        pants under § 3B1.1(a). Evidence of more than two additional par-
        ticipants exists in the record, including but not limited to:
        (1) Chauncy Stackhouse, a co-conspirator who began distributing
        drugs with Walker as early May 2018, traveled with Walker to Ar-
        izona to arrange drug shipments back to Florida on numerous oc-
        casions, and helped Walker orchestrate cocaine shipments from
        Puerto Rico to Florida; (2) Tyler Reed, also known as “Kyle,” who
        traveled to Arizona with Walker and Stackhouse on more than
        one occasion and helped recruit Savage into the conspiracy;
        (3) Kathy Stivale, who, like Savage, worked for Walker and
        shipped packages across the country on his behalf; (4) Chad, who
USCA11 Case: 21-14136     Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 04/27/2023    Page: 13 of 18

        21-14136               Opinion of the Court                      13

        arranged a new supplier for Walker in Arizona; and (5) the two
        men who delivered boxes of drugs to Savage for her to label and
        ship to Florida.
                Second, even though, in light of the number of partici-
        pants, establishing that the criminal activity was otherwise exten-
        sive was unnecessary, the record supports such a finding. We
        consider several factors when examining a criminal activity’s ex-
        tensiveness, including the length and scope of the criminal activity
        and the number of persons or entities involved. United States v.
        Holland, 22 F.3d 1040, 1046 (11th Cir. 1994); see, e.g., United
        States v. Rodriguez, 981 F.2d 1199 (11th Cir. 1993) (finding a drug
        transaction that extended through three states and another coun-
        try and involved the distribution of 100 kilograms of cocaine to be
        otherwise extensive); United States v. Gupta, 463 F.3d 1182, 1198
        (11th Cir. 2006) (finding a seven-year fraud scheme that involved
        “seven corporations, numerous straw owners, [and] Medicare re-
        imbursements of over $15 million” to be otherwise extensive).
        Furthermore, “[i]n assessing whether an organization is ‘other-
        wise extensive,’ all persons involved during the course of the en-
        tire offense are to be considered. Thus, a fraud that involved only
        three participants but used the unknowing services of many out-
        siders could be considered extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. 3.
              The scope of the criminal activity here was extensive. The
        conspiracy involved large quantities of drugs. Walker pled guilty
        to possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
        cocaine, 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, one kilogram
USCA11 Case: 21-14136     Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/27/2023    Page: 14 of 18

        14                     Opinion of the Court                21-14136

        or more of heroin, 40 grams or more of fentanyl, and 50 kilo-
        grams or more of marijuana. The PSI specifically attributed to
        Walker the distribution of 32,460 grams of near-pure metham-
        phetamine, 51,631 grams of marijuana, 79 grams of fentanyl, and
        125 grams of heroin. And these large quantities of drugs were
        shipped across state lines, with more than 50 parcels of cocaine,
        heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and marijuana traveling be-
        tween Arizona and Florida between July 2018 and October 2019.
        At one point during the conspiracy, cocaine was also coming in
        from Puerto Rico. In addition, the scheme hinged on the unknow-
        ing services of many outsiders—the USPS employees who unwit-
        tingly transported and delivered over 50 parcels of controlled sub-
        stances. We thus conclude that Walker’s criminal activity could
        be considered “otherwise extensive” given its scope and number
        of participants involved, including both knowing and unknowing
        participants.
               For all the above reasons, the district court did not err—
        clearly or otherwise—in determining that Walker was an organ-
        izer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more par-
        ticipants or was otherwise extensive under § 3B1.1(a).
                                         B.
               The Sentencing Guidelines mandate a two-level sentencing
        increase “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was pos-
        sessed” in connection with a drug offense. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).
        To justify a § 2D1.1(b)(1) dangerous-weapons enhancement, the
        government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence
USCA11 Case: 21-14136     Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 04/27/2023   Page: 15 of 18

        21-14136              Opinion of the Court                      15

        that either (1) “the firearm was present at the site of the charged
        conduct” or (2) “the defendant possessed a firearm during con-
        duct associated with the offense of conviction.” United States v.
        Stallings, 463 F.3d 1218, 1220 (11th Cir. 2006). Once the govern-
        ment meets its initial evidentiary burden, the burden shifts to the
        defendant to “demonstrate that a connection between the weap-
        on and the offense was clearly improbable.” Id. (internal quota-
        tions omitted).
               A § 2D1.1(b)(1) dangerous-weapons enhancement may be
        applied when a firearm is possessed by a co-conspirator rather
        than the defendant himself. United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356,
        1359 (11th Cir. 2005). To apply the enhancement to a defendant
        based on co-conspirator possession, the government must prove
        by a preponderance of the evidence that “(1) the possessor of the
        firearm was a co-conspirator, (2) the possession was in further-
        ance of the conspiracy, (3) the defendant was a member of the
        conspiracy at the time of possession, and (4) the co-conspirator
        possession was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.” United
        States v. Gallo, 195 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 1999) (emphasis in
        original).
               Here, the government offered three firearms to justify a
        dangerous-weapons enhancement: (1) a rifle seized during the
        search of the Arizona stash house maintained by co-defendant
        Hamilton; (2) a loaded handgun found behind the front passenger
        seat of the vehicle Walker drove immediately before his arrest;
        and (3) a firearm co-defendant Savage arranged for Walker to buy
USCA11 Case: 21-14136     Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 04/27/2023   Page: 16 of 18

        16                    Opinion of the Court                21-14136

        in Arizona. The district court found that two firearms—the fire-
        arm recovered from Hamilton’s Arizona residence and the fire-
        arm found inside the vehicle at Walker’s arrest—satisfied the gov-
        ernment’s initial evidentiary burden under § 2D1.1(b)(1). The
        court also found that Walker failed to demonstrate that a connec-
        tion between the weapons and the offense was clearly improba-
        ble.
               We turn first to the rifle connected to co-defendant Hamil-
        ton. Walker does not dispute that: (1) Hamilton was a co-
        conspirator who possessed a firearm, (2) the possession was in
        furtherance of the conspiracy, or (3) Walker was a member of the
        conspiracy at the time Hamilton possessed the firearm. Instead,
        Walker argues that there is no evidence to show that he knew
        about Hamilton’s firearm or that he should have reasonably fore-
        seen his co-conspirator’s firearm possession. Thus, only the fourth
        prong of Gallo is at issue.
               We therefore focus on whether it was reasonably foreseea-
        ble to Walker that Hamilton would possess a firearm. In this in-
        quiry, it is not required that Walker knew about Hamilton’s fire-
        arm possession; the question is whether the possession was rea-
        sonably foreseeable. United States v. Martinez, 924 F.2d 209, 210
        (11th Cir. 1991).
               Our precedent recognizes that “guns are a tool of the drug
        trade. There is a frequent and overpowering connection between
        the use of firearms and narcotics traffic.” United States v. Cruz,
        805 F.2d 1464, 1474 (11th Cir. 1986). Because of this connection,
USCA11 Case: 21-14136     Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 04/27/2023    Page: 17 of 18

        21-14136               Opinion of the Court                      17

        we have found it reasonably foreseeable that a co-conspirator
        would possess a firearm when the conspiracy involves trafficking
        large quantities of valuable illegal drugs. United States v. Pham,
        463 F.3d 1239, 1246 (11th Cir. 2006).
                Here, the rifle was seized at an Arizona stash house used by
        multiple co-conspirators to facilitate drug-trafficking activities.
        There were approximately 49.4 kilograms of marijuana and 2.7
        kilograms of methamphetamine in the house at the time agents
        seized the rifle. Those drugs were destined for Florida; agents
        found them in parcels already addressed with handwritten labels
        to various locations in the Middle District of Florida. In addition
        to the specific drugs found at Hamilton’s residence the day agents
        executed their search warrant, we reiterate, Walker pled guilty to
        conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms
        or more of cocaine, 500 grams or more of methamphetamine,
        one kilogram or more of heroin, 40 grams or more of fentanyl,
        and 50 kilograms or more of marijuana. And, again, the PSI specif-
        ically attributed to Walker 32,460 grams of “ice,” 51,631 grams of
        marijuana, 79 grams of fentanyl, and 125 grams of heroin.
               We have no trouble concluding that Walker could have
        reasonably foreseen a co-conspirator’s possession of a firearm in
        light of the sheer quantity and value of drugs he and his co-
        conspirators possessed and trafficked. The district court did not
        clearly err in applying a two-level dangerous weapons enhance-
        ment to Walker based on his co-conspirator’s possession.
USCA11 Case: 21-14136         Document: 41-1         Date Filed: 04/27/2023         Page: 18 of 18

        18                         Opinion of the Court                        21-14136

               Because the co-conspirator firearm is sufficient to justify
        the § 2D1.1(b)(1) sentencing enhancement, we need not address
        the firearm found in the vehicle Walker drove the day of his ar-
        rest.
                                               IV.
              For the above reasons, we conclude that the district court
        did not err in applying the four-level leadership-role enhancement
        pursuant to § 3B1.1(a) or the two-level dangerous-weapon en-
        hancement pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(1). 6 The district court’s judg-
        ment is affirmed.
                AFFIRMED.

        6 After the parties completed briefing in this appeal, Walker, proceeding pro
        se, submitted a letter to the court arguing that the district court erred in find-
        ing that he qualified as a career offender. He relied on our recent decision in
        Dupree v. United States, in which we held that the crime of conspiring to
        possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance offense did not quali-
        fy as a “controlled substance offense” for purposes of the career-offender en-
        hancement. 57 F.4th 1269, 1271 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc).
        But even assuming the district court erred in finding that Walker qualified as
        a career offender, any error was harmless. Without the career-offender en-
        hancement, Walker’s guidelines range would be the same because his total
        offense level and criminal history category would not change.