Court Opinion

ID: 9941195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 01:01:30.262763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:20.540669
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30369        Document: 00517066089             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/15/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-30369
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               February 15, 2024
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Robert Joseph Gant,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 6:20-CR-48-5
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Robert Joseph Gant and 14 other individuals were named in a 36-count
   third superseding indictment charging them with numerous controlled
   substance offenses and numerous money laundering offenses. Gant entered
   into a plea agreement to plead guilty to count one in exchange for dismissal

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30369     Document: 00517066089           Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                    No. 23-30369

   of the remaining counts. The district court sentenced Gant to 210 months in
   prison and five years of supervised release.
          Gant argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary
   because he thought that he would not be held responsible for any narcotics
   that were not part of the conspiracy to distribute heroin and fentanyl. A
   defendant understands the consequences of his plea if he understands the
   maximum prison term and fine he faces. United States v. Guerra, 94 F.3d 989,
   995 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Jones, 905 F.2d 867, 868-69 (5th Cir.
   1990). The transcript of rearraignment shows that Gant was informed of the
   elements of conspiracy to distribute heroin and fentanyl and understood the
   elements. The district court informed Gant that he was subject to a minimum
   of 10 years in prison, a maximum of life in prison, a minimum fine of
   $10,000,000, a minimum term of five years of supervised release, and a $100
   special assessment. Gant stated in open court that he understood the
   potential penalties for his offense. Gant’s guilty plea was knowing and
   voluntary. See Jones, 905 F.2d at 868.
          Gant argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that he was
   responsible for the drugs found in Cedric Sinegal’s stash house and transport
   vehicles. As Gant preserved his challenge, we review the district court’s
   application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for
   clear error. United States v. Suchowolski, 838 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 2016).
   In determining a defendant’s base offense level, “the district court may
   consider other offenses in addition to the acts underlying the offense of
   conviction, as long as those offenses constitute ‘relevant conduct’ as defined
   in the Guidelines.” United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878, 885 (5th Cir. 2009).
   The stipulated factual basis for his plea and the offense conduct section of
   the presentence report (PSR) show that Sinegal was Gant’s supplier, that
   Sinegal traveled to Mexico and California to arrange for payment and
   importation of the drugs through California, and that Gant and Sinegal

                                         2
Case: 23-30369      Document: 00517066089             Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                     No. 23-30369

   discussed the nature and the delivery of the drugs after Sinegal returned from
   California. Sinegal had transport vehicles to bring the drugs from California
   to his stash house. Given that these facts were contained in the stipulated
   factual basis for his guilty plea, Gant’s argument that he could not have
   reasonably foreseen the scope of Sinegal’s activities must fail. See United
   States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246-48 (5th Cir. 2005).
          Finally, Gant argues that the district court erred by imposing a two-
   level enhancement for the importation of the methamphetamine under
   U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5)(A).         The importation enhancement applies
   regardless whether the defendant or his supplier imported the drugs. See
   United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2014). 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). The
   district   court’s   conclusion    that       an   offense   involved   imported
   methamphetamine is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States
   v. Brune, 991 F.3d 652, 667 (5th Cir. 2021). As discussed above, Sinegal,
   Gant’s source, was importing the methamphetamine from Mexico to
   California. The district court’s finding of importation is plausible in the light
   of the record as a whole. See Brune, 991 F.3d at 667.
          AFFIRMED.

                                             3