Court Opinion

ID: 9895405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 01:02:27.007418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:29.892199
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50857         Document: 00516958320             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/06/2023

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

                                      ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                      November 6, 2023
                                       No. 22-50857
                                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                           Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Shannon Wilson,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:22-CR-78-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Shannon Wilson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a
   firearm. Because Wilson possessed the firearm in connection with a drug-
   trafficking offense, the Sentencing Guidelines required the district court to
   sentence him under the Guideline for the drug offense, which it did. Using
   the gross weight of the seized methamphetamine pills, the district court

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50857          Document: 00516958320             Page: 2       Date Filed: 11/06/2023

                                          No. 22-50857

   sentenced Wilson to 110 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised
   release.
           On appeal, Wilson challenges the district court’s drug-quantity
   calculation. He says that the district court erroneously calculated his
   sentence by using the gross weight of the methamphetamine pills rather than
   estimating the weight of the actual methamphetamine in each pill. We
   disagree and affirm.
                                                I
           Wilson, known to police as a suspect in several firearms-related
   crimes, was pulled over for driving without a valid driver’s license. During
   the stop, police discovered a loaded 9-millimeter pistol and a large bag of
   orange pills. The bag had 954 whole pills, 33 partial pills, and orange
   powder—totaling 361.93 grams. Laboratory analysis later confirmed that the
   pills contained methamphetamine.
           Wilson was charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of being a
   felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).1 Because
   he possessed the firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking offense, the
   presentence investigation report (PSR) applied § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing
   Guidelines to calculate his sentence.2 Using the gross weight of the pills—
   361.93 grams—the PSR assigned Wilson a base offense level of 28. See
           _____________________
           1
               The Government did not pursue a drug charge.
           2
             Generally, § 2K2.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines applies to § 922(g)(1) felon-in-
   possession offenses. See U.S.S.G. App. A. But when a defendant uses or possesses the
   firearm in connection with the commission of another offense, a cross-reference to § 2X1.1
   applies “if the resulting offense level is greater than” the one appliable under § 2k2.1. Id.
   § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A). The base offense level under § 2X1.1 is the “base offense level from the
   guideline for the substantive offense, plus any adjustments from such guideline.” Id.
   § 2X1.1(a). Wilson does not challenge the application of the cross-reference or that his
   firearm offense was connected to an 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) drug-trafficking offense.

                                                2
Case: 22-50857       Document: 00516958320            Page: 3     Date Filed: 11/06/2023

                                       No. 22-50857

   U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5), (c)(6). The PSR then added two levels for Wilson’s
   gun possession, see id. § 2D1.1(b)(1), and deducted three levels for Wilson’s
   acceptance of responsibility, bringing his total offense level to 27. Wilson’s
   criminal history of VI produced a Guidelines range of 130 to 162 months’
   imprisonment. But because the statutory maximum punishment was 120
   months, the Guidelines recommended that sentence.
          Wilson filed a written objection to the PSR, challenging its calculation
   of his base offense level. He argued that, because the seized
   methamphetamine was in pill form, his sentence should have been calculated
   using the Typical Weight Per Unit Table in application note 9 rather than the
   Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1(c). Had the PSR applied the Per Unit Table,
   Wilson’s total offense level would have been 21, producing a Guidelines
   range of 77 to 96 months.3
          Wilson also filed a sentencing memorandum. He reiterated his
   objection to the PSR and alternatively requested a downward variance. The
   Government filed a written response, arguing that the PSR correctly
   calculated Wilson’s sentence using the Drug Quantity Table. It reasoned
   that, because the pills had been weighed, the Per Unit Table did not apply to
   Wilson’s case because the table applies only when the weight of the
   controlled substance is unknown. Wilson renewed his objection at
   sentencing.
          The district court overruled Wilson’s objection but granted a
   downward variance, imposing a below-Guidelines sentence of 110 months of

          _____________________
          3
             The Per Unit Table assigns actual methamphetamine an estimated weight of 5
   milligrams per pill, capsule, or dose. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.9. Five milligrams,
   multiplied by 954 seized pills is 4.8 grams of pure methamphetamine, producing a base
   offense level of 22. Id. § 2D1.1(c)(9).

                                            3
Case: 22-50857      Document: 00516958320           Page: 4    Date Filed: 11/06/2023

                                     No. 22-50857

   imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release. Wilson timely
   appealed his sentence.
                                          II
          We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its
   interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines de novo. United
   States v. Ferris, 52 F.4th 235, 239 (5th Cir. 2022).
                                         III
          Wilson’s challenge requires us to interpret the Guidelines’ text. He
   argues that the plain language of application note 9 specifies that the court
   must use the Per Unit Table when a defendant is sentenced for possessing
   methamphetamine in pill form.
          We apply the typical rules of statutory interpretation to the
   Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Stanford, 883 F.3d 500, 511 (5th Cir.
   2018). We start with the Guideline’s text. Id. “If the language is
   unambiguous, and does not lead to an ‘absurd result,’ [our] inquiry begins
   and ends with the plain meaning of that language.” Id. (citing United States
   v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 473 (5th Cir. 2016)). Like statutes, we read the
   Guidelines as a whole “since the meaning of statutory language, plain or not,
   depends on context.” Id. (quoting United States v. Hoang, 636 F.3d 677, 681
   (5th Cir. 2011)). “[C]ommentary in the Guidelines Manual that interprets or
   explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a
   federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that
   guideline.” Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993); accord United
   States v. Cortez-Gonzalez, 929 F.3d 200, 204 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v.
   Choulat, 75 F.4th 489, 494 (5th Cir. 2023).

                                          4
Case: 22-50857      Document: 00516958320           Page: 5       Date Filed: 11/06/2023

                                    No. 22-50857

                                         A
          First, some background. For drug crimes, a defendant’s base offense
   level is generally calculated by referencing the Drug Quantity Table in
   § 2D1.1(c). U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5). The Drug Quantity Table assigns
   offense levels based on the type and weight of the drugs involved. Id.
   § 2D1.1(c)(1)–(17). Except when “otherwise specified,” the table uses “the
   entire weight of any mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
   the controlled substance.” Id. § 2D1.1(c), n.(A).
          As   to   methamphetamine,          the   table    distinguishes   between
   “methamphetamine        (actual)”—which          is      the   weight     of   the
   methamphetamine itself—and the mixture or substance containing
   methamphetamine. Id. § 2D1.1(c), n.(B). “In the case of a mixture or
   substance containing . . . methamphetamine,” the Guidelines directs courts
   to “use the offense level determined by the entire weight of the mixture or
   substance, or the offense level determined by the weight of
   the . . . methamphetamine (actual), whichever is greater.” Id.
          This appeal is about the relationship between § 2D1.1(c) and
   application note 9. That note applies when “the number of doses, pills, or
   capsules” is known but “the weight of the controlled substance” is not. Id.
   § 2D1.1, cmt. n.9. In those cases, application note 9 directs courts to
   “multiply the number of doses, pills, or capsules by the typical weight per
   dose” in the Per Unit Table “to estimate the total weight of the controlled
   substance.” Id. But application note 9 cautions courts not to use the “table if
   any more reliable estimate of the total weight is available from case-specific
   information.” Id. And, for the substances marked with an asterisk, including
   methamphetamine, the table further warns that it “provides a very
   conservative estimate of the total weight.” Id. § 2D1.1, cmt. nn.9 & 9*.

                                          5
Case: 22-50857      Document: 00516958320           Page: 6    Date Filed: 11/06/2023

                                     No. 22-50857

                                          B
           Wilson acknowledges that the general rule for calculating drug
   quantity under § 2D1.1(c) is to use the weight of the mixture or substance
   containing a detectable amount of the controlled substance. But he contends
   that application note 9 creates an exception to this general rule. He argues
   that when, as here, methamphetamine is in pill form, § 2D1.1(c) does not
   apply at all because the Per Unit Table in application note 9 estimates the
   quantity of actual methamphetamine rather than the mixture or substance
   containing methamphetamine. See id. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.9. Otherwise, he
   argues, application note 9 would be superfluous. We disagree.
                                           1
           Application Note 9 is not an exception to the general mixture-or-
   substance rule. First, by its plain terms, application note 9 applies only when
   the “weight of the controlled substance” is unknown. Id. That is not the case
   here.
           Wilson tries to get around this fact by arguing that the first sentence
   of application note 9 redefines “weight of the controlled substance” to mean
   the amount of the actual controlled substance. Recall, the first sentence of
   application note 9 says, “If the number of doses, pills, or capsules but not the
   weight of the controlled substance is known, multiply the number of doses, pills,
   or capsules by the typical weight per dose in the table below to estimate the
   total weight of the controlled substance.” Id. (emphasis added).
           In support of this argument, Wilson says that we must use the
   definition of “controlled substance” from 21 U.S.C. § 802(6). That section
   defines “controlled substance” as “a drug or other substance . . . included in
   schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(6).
   But this argument ignores Note A to the Drug Quantity Table, which
   explains that “the weight of a controlled substance set forth in the table refers

                                           6
Case: 22-50857      Document: 00516958320          Page: 7    Date Filed: 11/06/2023

                                    No. 22-50857

   to the entire weight of any mixture or substance containing a detectable
   amount of the controlled substance.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), n.(A). We must
   construe application note 9 in light of this rule because application note 9 is
   not part of the Guidelines. “Like all other application notes, it serves to
   ‘interpret the guideline[s] or explain how [they are] to be applied.’” United
   States v. Shabazz, 933 F.2d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (alteration in original)
   (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7).
          Additionally, the Per Unit Table itself follows the general mixture-or-
   substance rule. For each drug, the table provides the estimated typical
   mixture weight per pill. The table departs from this general rule only for
   seven controlled substances marked with an asterisk. For those marked
   substances, “the weight per unit shown is the weight of the actual controlled
   substance, and not generally the weight of the mixture or substance
   containing the controlled substance.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.9.
          True, methamphetamine is marked with an asterisk, which means that
   the table estimates the weight of the actual methamphetamine per pill. But
   recall that the Drug Quantity Table provides different offense levels for
   methamphetamine        based     on    mixture-or-substance      weight     and
   methamphetamine based on actual weight. Id. § 2D.1.1(c). Application
   note 9 merely expresses the Guideline’s preference that, when the mixture
   weight of methamphetamine is unknown, courts must estimate the total
   weight based on the actual weight of the methamphetamine per pill. As one
   of our sister circuits explained, this “simply reflects the Commission’s
   judgment that the per-unit weight of the relevant mixture or substance
   [containing methamphetamine] cannot be estimated with sufficient precision

                                          7
Case: 22-50857         Document: 00516958320               Page: 8      Date Filed: 11/06/2023

                                          No. 22-50857

   so as to justify using the preferred approach” of using mixture weight.4 See
   Shabazz, 933 F.2d at 1034.
                                                 2
           Nor is application note 9 superfluous. For it to apply, two conditions
   must be met: (1) the weight of the pills is unknown and (2) no more reliable
   estimate is available. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.9. Neither is met here.
           First, as the Government notes, Wilson relies on an assumption not
   true in every case—that all pills constituting relevant conduct have been
   seized and weighed. In many cases, the overall drug quantity attributable to a
   defendant is not based on seized drugs alone. Id. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.5 (“Types
   and quantities of drugs not specified in the count of conviction may be
   considered in determining the offense level.”). Application note 5 directs
   courts to approximate drug quantities using other evidence when “there is
   no drug seizure[,] or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the
   offense.” 5 Id.; see also United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 267 (5th Cir.
   2006) (“The court may extrapolate the quantity from any information that
   has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy, including

           _____________________
           4
              Wilson does not argue, nor can he, that anything in § 2D1.1(c) requires courts to
   use the actual weight of methamphetamine when the mixture weight is available. Instead,
   when there is evidence of mixture weight and actual weight, the court must use “whichever
   is greater.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), n.(B).
           5
             Wilson contends that the connection to application note 5 is “untenable” because
   the notes do not work together or state that they work in step. But we decline his invitation
   to read application note 9 in isolation. We must read statutory language in context. Chamber
   of Com. of U.S. of Am. v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 885 F.3d 360, 372 (5th Cir. 2018) (“[S]tatutory
   language cannot be construed in a vacuum. It is a fundamental canon of statutory
   construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to
   their place in the overall statutory scheme.” (alteration in original) (quoting Davis v. Mich.
   Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809, (1989))).

                                                 8
Case: 22-50857     Document: 00516958320          Page: 9   Date Filed: 11/06/2023

                                   No. 22-50857

   a probation officer’s testimony, a policeman’s approximation of unrecovered
   drugs, and even hearsay.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
          And second, application note 9 prohibits the use of the Per Unit Table
   “if any more reliable estimate of the total weight is available from case-
   specific information.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.9. Our sister circuits agree
   that evidence of mixture weight—when available—is more reliable than an
   estimate from the Per Unit Table. See, e.g., United States v. Roche, 415 F.3d
   614, 619 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that the district court properly estimated
   drug weight based on the actual weight of recovered ecstasy tablets because
   “the defendant is responsible for the weight of the whole pill, not just the
   active ingredient”); United States v. Tracy, 989 F.2d 1279, 1287 (1st Cir.
   1993) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that the court should have used
   the Per Unit Table because “the table produces conservative estimates that,
   among other things, do not account for the weight of the ‘mixture or
   substance’ that should be included in calculating the amount of LSD for
   sentencing”); United States v. Martz, 964 F.2d 787, 790 (8th Cir. 1992)
   (holding that the district court did not err by using an estimate from the
   lightest known dose instead of the Per Unit Table). In this case, there is no
   need to rely on an estimate because the weight of the pills is known and
   undisputed.
          Wilson resists this conclusion by relying heavily on our decision in
   United States v. Tushnet, 526 F.3d 823 (5th Cir. 2008). But Tushnet is not to
   the contrary. In Tushnet, the defendant accepted responsibility for 45,331
   MDMA pills. Id. at 823. The DEA tested 5,000 of those pills and determined
   that each pill contained 100 milligrams of actual MDMA. Id. at 824. But the
   weight of the other 40,000 pills was unknown. In calculating Tushnet’s
   sentence, the district court consulted the Per Unit Table and used the
   presumed typical weight of 250 milligrams per pill rather than the 100-
   milligram figure. Id. We affirmed.

                                        9
Case: 22-50857     Document: 00516958320            Page: 10    Date Filed: 11/06/2023

                                     No. 22-50857

          Tushnet does not help Wilson. For one, unlike in Tushnet, the weight
   of all the pills that Wilson is responsible for is known, so there is no reason to
   consult application note 9 for an estimate. And, contrary to Wilson’s
   assertion, Tushnet did not establish a general rule that courts must use the
   table when pills are involved. Rather, we held that the district court did not
   err by using the table in that case. True, Tushnet concerned MDMA, which
   is not asterisked in the Per Unit Table. For Tushnet’s sentence, this meant
   that the weight of the actual MDMA was irrelevant. But, as we previously
   explained, it does not help Wilson that methamphetamine is asterisked. And
   here, even if the court estimated the amount of actual methamphetamine
   using the table, it would still have to use the mixture weight because that
   measure produces a higher offense level. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), n.(B) (“In the
   case of a mixture or substance containing . . . methamphetamine,” the court
   must “use the offense level determined by the entire weight of the mixture
   or substance, or the offense level determined by the weight of
   the . . . methamphetamine (actual), whichever is greater.”).
                                          IV
          Application note 9 does not apply to Wilson’s case—the weight of
   Wilson’s methamphetamine pills was known and more reliable than the
   hypothetical weight from the Per Unit Table. Because the plain language of
   application note 9 does not create an exception to the general mixture-or-
   substance rule, the district court did not err by sentencing Wilson based on
   the gross weight of his methamphetamine pills.
          Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

                                          10