Court Opinion

ID: 9929482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 19:00:46.781813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:40.797273
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50079        Document: 00517053816             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/02/2024

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

                                      No. 23-50079                                     FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                            February 2, 2024
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Courtney Michelle Booth,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:21-CR-37-2
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Courtney Michelle Booth pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
   possess with intent to distribute and to distribute at least 500 grams of
   methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii),
   and 846. On appeal, Booth argues that the district court erred by declining

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50079      Document: 00517053816            Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/02/2024

                                      No. 23-50079

   to apply a mitigating role offense level decrease under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 and
   two associated decreases under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.
          In general, the district court’s interpretation or application of the
   Sentencing Guidelines 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). Whether a defendant was a minor or minimal participant
   is a factual determination subject to clear error review. Id. 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). Booth objected
   to the district court’s refusal to apply the four-level minimal participant
   decrease, and thus we review this issue for clear error. See Torres-Hernandez,
   843 F.3d at 207. However, because Booth did not argue before the district
   court that a two-level minor participant decrease was warranted, this issue is
   subject to plain error review. See United States v. Martinez-Larraga, 517 F.3d
   258, 272 (5th Cir. 2008). To succeed on plain error review, the defendant
   must demonstrate that (1) there is an error “that has not been intentionally
   relinquished or abandoned,” (2) the error was clear or obvious, and (3) the
   error affected his “substantial rights.” Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,
   135 (2009). If the defendant makes this showing, we have the discretion to
   correct the error “only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or
   public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks,
   brackets, and citation omitted).
          It is uncontested that Booth was not a part of the large drug trafficking
   organization for which her co-defendant was a distributor. However, the
   defendant’s culpability is compared only to that of the “average participant”
   which, under § 3B1.2, “means only those persons who actually participated
   in the criminal activity at issue in the defendant’s case, so that the
   defendant’s culpability is determined only by reference to his or her co-

                                           2
Case: 23-50079      Document: 00517053816           Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/02/2024

                                     No. 23-50079

   participants in the case at hand.” Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d at 208-09
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Booth has failed to demonstrate that she was substantially less
   culpable than her co-defendant in their joint criminal activity of possessing
   methamphetamine in her co-defendant’s vehicle. See § 3B1.2, comment.
   (n.3(A)). The record reflects that Booth was present with her co-defendant
   during four methamphetamine pickups, the methamphetamine at issue was
   discovered directly under her seat in the vehicle when she and her co-
   defendant were arrested, and she admitted that these were her drugs.
   Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by declining to apply a four-
   level minimal participant decrease. See Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d at 208-
   09; see also United States v. Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d 260, 264-65 (5th Cir.
   2017). Furthermore, Booth is unable to demonstrate that the district court
   plainly erred by failing to apply a two-level minor participant decrease. See
   Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d at 264; see also Martinez-Larraga, 517 F.3d at 272.
          Because Booth has not demonstrated that the district court erred by
   declining to apply a mitigating role offense level decrease under § 3B1.2, the
   district court did not err by declining to apply the two associated mitigating
   role offense level decreases under § 2D1.1(a)(5) and § 2D1.1(b)(17).
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          3