Court Opinion

ID: 9703559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:00:27.285083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:06.902690
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50581   Document: 00516873378   Page: 1   Date Filed: 08/25/2023

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                           ____________
                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                            No. 22-50581
                          Summary Calendar                       FILED
                          ____________                     August 25, 2023
                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                     Clerk

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   William Thomas Flournoy,

                                               Defendant—Appellant,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 22-50582
                          _____________

   United States of America,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   William Flournoy,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 22-50581         Document: 00516873378             Page: 2      Date Filed: 08/25/2023

                                          No. 22-50581
                                        c/w No. 22-50582

                      ______________________________

                     Appeals from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                      USDC Nos. 7:14-CR-216-1, 7:22-CR-24-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          William Thomas Flournoy appeals the sentence imposed following his
   guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute five grams or
   more of actual methamphetamine, as well as the judgment revoking his
   supervised release for a prior offense. He has not briefed, and has therefore
   abandoned, any challenge to the revocation of supervised release or to the
   revocation sentence. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254–55 (5th
   Cir. 2010).
          Flournoy’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred by
   declining to apply a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) when
   determining the sentence for this conviction. In general, the district court’s
   interpretation or application of Section 3B1.2 is reviewed de novo, and its
   factual findings are reviewed for clear error.               United States v. Torres-
   Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2016); see United States v. Valencia,
   44 F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that whether a defendant is a minor
   participant is a factual finding reviewed for clear error). “A factual finding is
   not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record read as a whole.”
   United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir. 2005).
          First, contrary to Flournoy’s suggestion, the district court did not
   deny him a minor role adjustment because it believed it lacked the authority

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                    2
Case: 22-50581        Document: 00516873378       Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/25/2023

                                    No. 22-50581
                                  c/w No. 22-50582

   to do so. Instead, after consideration of all facts and legal arguments, the
   court deemed Flournoy’s contentions to be unpersuasive. See United States
   v. Garcia, 655 F.3d 426, 431–32 (5th Cir. 2011).
          The record reflects that Flournoy personally sold methamphetamine
   out of his residence on three occasions, obtained approximately four to five
   ounces of methamphetamine over the course of the preceding months, and
   had drug-packaging paraphernalia as well as 20.7 grams of methamphetamine
   in his bedroom. Based on this evidence, the district court could plausibly
   conclude that Flournoy was not “merely peripheral to the advancement of
   illegal activity.” Burton v. United States, 237 F.3d 490, 504 (5th Cir. 2000).
   Therefore, the district court did not clearly err in declining to apply a minor
   role adjustment under Section 3B1.2(b). See United States v. Castro, 843 F.3d
   608, 612–14 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 331
   (5th Cir. 2016).
          The district court’s judgments are AFFIRMED.

                                             3