Court Opinion

ID: 9917333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 01:00:58.730438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:24.541379
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60315         Document: 00517030688             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/11/2024

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

                                       No. 23-60315
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                 January 11, 2024
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Lucas Smith,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 3:22-CR-62-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Lucas Smith pleaded guilty to: one count of conspiracy to distribute
   methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and
   846; and one count of engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally
   derived property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. The district court
   sentenced him to a within-Guidelines 240-months’ sentence.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60315      Document: 00517030688           Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/11/2024

                                     No. 23-60315

          Smith asserts the district court erred by:          imposing a two-level
   enhancement under Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(2) (“If the defendant used
   violence, made a credible threat to use violence, or directed the use of
   violence, increase by 2 levels.”); and failing to adequately consider the 18
   U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. He also disagrees with the court’s
   weighing of several of those factors.
          Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,
   the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly
   calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
   38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved
   objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness
   under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-
   Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues
   preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de
   novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-
   Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
          First, Smith contends the court erred by applying a two-level
   enhancement because his statements do not amount to a credible threat of
   violence. “Application of [Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(2)] is a factual finding
   reviewable for clear error.” United States v. Dennis, 41 F.4th 732, 744 (5th
   Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2616 (2023).
          In the light of the testimony at sentencing, including by Smith, the
   court did not clearly err in finding Smith made a credible threat to use
   violence against a person or his family. See id.; United States v. Caldwell, 448
   F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006) (“We will uphold a district court’s factual
   finding on clear error review so long as the enhancement is plausible in light
   of the record as a whole.”).

                                           2
Case: 23-60315      Document: 00517030688            Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/11/2024

                                      No. 23-60315

          Second, Smith arguably asserts the court procedurally erred by failing
   to give “adequate[]” or “meaningful consideration” to the 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 (including “fail[ure] to
   consider the § 3553(a) factors” as procedural error). Because Smith did not
   preserve 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,
   Smith 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).
          The record, including the court’s comments based on Smith’s
   testimony at sentencing, reflects that it adequately evaluated the 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Smith, therefore, fails to show the requisite
   clear-or-obvious error. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir.
   2006) (“The court, however, need not engage in robotic incantations that
   each statutory factor has been considered.” (citation omitted)); United States
   v. Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 585–87 (5th Cir. 2021) (rejecting lack-of-
   explanation contention under plain-error review); United States v.
   Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2009) (“[Defendant]’s
   sentence is within the Guidelines, and he fails to show that an explanation
   would have changed his sentence.”).
          Finally, assuming Smith also, or instead, asserts a substantive-
   reasonableness challenge to his sentence and has adequately briefed it, he
   essentially asks our court to reweigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
   factors and substitute our judgment, which our court will not do. See Gall,
   552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413, 435 (5th Cir. 2013)

                                           3
Case: 23-60315     Document: 00517030688          Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/11/2024

                                   No. 23-60315

   (declining to reweigh 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors on substantive-
   reasonableness review).
         AFFIRMED.

                                        4