Court Opinion

ID: 9380231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 18:00:33.104712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.633065
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30495         Document: 00516679906             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/17/2023

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

                                       No. 22-30495
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                March 17, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Adam Hicks,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 5:21-CR-109-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curium: *
          Adam Hicks pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess five or more
   grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
   §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii) and 846. He was sentenced to 292 months of
   imprisonment and five years of supervised release. For the first time, Hicks
   argues that the district court plainly erred by determining that he qualified

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30495      Document: 00516679906           Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/17/2023

                                     No. 22-30495

   for a career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, because his
   conspiracy conviction is an inchoate offense that does not constitute a
   controlled substance offense for purposes of the Guideline.
          Because he failed to challenge the application of the career offender
   Guideline on this, or any ground, in the district court, review is for plain
   error. See United States v. Huerra, 884 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2018). To show
   plain error, Hicks must demonstrate a forfeited error that is clear or obvious
   and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,
   135 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the error if it
   “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
   proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted).
   Whether an error is clear or obvious is determined in light of the state of the
   law at the time of appeal, rather than at the time of the district court’s ruling.
   Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 279 (2013); see Puckett, 556 U.S. at
   135.
          A defendant may be subject to an enhanced sentence under § 4B1.1 if
   he is convicted of an offense that qualifies as either a crime of violence or a
   controlled substance offense and has two or more prior felony convictions
   that qualify as either a crime of violence or controlled substance offense.
   § 4B1.1(a). The guidelines definition of a controlled substance offense does
   not mention inchoate offenses. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). However, the
   application note to the Guideline states that “‘[c]rime of violence’ and
   ‘controlled substance offense’ include the offenses of aiding and abetting,
   conspiring, and attempting to commit such offenses.” § 4B1.2, comment.
   (n.1). In United States v. Lightbourn, 115 F.3d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1997), we
   held that the Sentencing Commission “has . . . lawfully included drug
   conspiracies in the category of crimes triggering classification as a career
   offender under § 4B1.1.” See also United States v. Kendrick, 980 F.3d 432,
   444 (5th Cir. 2020) (affirming Lightbourn’s continued validity). Under our

                                           2
Case: 22-30495       Document: 00516679906           Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/17/2023

                                      No. 22-30495

   rule of orderliness, circuit precedent is binding unless overridden by an
   intervening change in the law such as by a decision of the Supreme Court or
   this court sitting en banc. United States v. Petras, 879 F.3d 155, 164 (5th Cir.
   2018).
            Hicks acknowledges our precedent but suggests that this precedent
   may be overturned by the forthcoming en banc decision in United States v.
   Vargas, 35 F.4th 936, 938-40 (5th Cir. 2022), reh’g en banc granted, 45 F.4th
   1083 (5th Cir. 2022), and requests that his case be held pending that decision.
   But even if Vargas were to override precedent and hold that inchoate drug
   conspiracies cannot trigger application of the career offender enhancement,
   that would not demonstrate that any error was plain. What’s more, Hicks is
   still required to show that the error affected his substantial rights. See Puckett,
   556 U.S. at 135. To do so, he must demonstrate a reasonable probability that,
   but for the error, his sentence would have been different. See Molina-
   Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 194 (2016). He has not satisfied this
   prong of the plain-error analysis.
            Although Hicks was determined to be a career offender, his sentence
   was not based on the career offender offense level set forth in § 4B1.1(b),
   because the career offender offense level of 34 was not greater than the
   offense level otherwise applicable. See § 4B1.1(b). Hicks does not dispute
   this but instead asserts that if he was not a career offender under the
   Guidelines, the district court would reconsider his objections to the
   enhancements applied under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 and U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(c),
   which, in turn, might result in a lower sentence. However, the district court
   indicated at sentencing that it would not sustain Hicks’s objections to the
   sentencing enhancements. Moreover, the district court expressly stated that
   if the “guideline determination made in this sentence is found to be
   incorrect,” it would “impose the same sentence considering the factors
   contained in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553,” and the court specifically referred to its

                                           3
Case: 22-30495        Document: 00516679906         Page: 4   Date Filed: 03/17/2023

                                     No. 22-30495

   consideration of Hicks’s criminal history, personal characteristics, and
   involvement in the instant offense in determining an appropriate sentence.
             Because Hicks has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that but
   for his career offender classification under § 4B1.1, his sentence would have
   been different, he cannot show that the alleged error affected his substantial
   rights.     Accordingly, on this basis, the district court’s judgment is
   AFFIRMED.

                                           4