Court Opinion

ID: 9895332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 19:00:27.731324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:06.096236
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30092         Document: 00516957192             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/06/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                       No. 23-30092                             November 6, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   James Christopher Weeks,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 1:21-CR-155-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Defendant-Appellant James Christopher Weeks pleaded guilty,
   pursuant to a written plea agreement without an appeal waiver, to conspiracy
   to possess 50 grams or more of methamphetamine or 500 grams or more of a
   mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine
   with the intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30092      Document: 00516957192          Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/06/2023

                                    No. 23-30092

   The district court sentenced Weeks within the guidelines range to 360
   months of imprisonment and imposed a 10-year term of supervised release.
   Weeks now appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by
   refusing to reject the methamphetamine-purity distinction in U.S.S.G.
   § 2D1.1 and refusing to deviate from the Guidelines based on his arguments
   that the methamphetamine Guideline is not empirically grounded and that
   application of the Guideline would result in unwarranted sentencing
   disparities.
          Because Weeks preserved his arguments for appeal, we review the
   procedural reasonableness of his sentence for harmless error and the
   substantive reasonableness of his sentence for abuse of discretion. See United
   States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 598 (5th Cir. 2014). District courts have the
   discretion to vary from the Guidelines for several reasons, including “solely
   upon policy disagreement,” including disagreement with the drug-purity
   distinctions, but they are not required to do so. United States v. Malone, 828
   F.3d 331, 338-39 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S.
   85, 109 (2007)). Nevertheless, a district court’s failure to recognize that it
   has such discretion constitutes procedural error. See Robinson, 741 F.3d at
   599, 601. Weeks does not allege, however, nor does the record reflect, that
   the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory or did not know that it
   could vary based on policy disagreements. Finding no procedural error, we
   turn to the substantive reasonableness of Weeks’s sentence.
          Weeks’s arguments that § 2D1.1 is not empirically grounded and
   results in unwarranted sentencing disparities implicate the substantive
   reasonableness of his sentence. However, his arguments are insufficient to
   rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded to his within-guidelines
   sentence. “Whatever appropriate deviations it may permit or encourage at
   the discretion of the district judge, Kimbrough does not force district or
   appellate courts into a piece-by-piece analysis of the empirical grounding

                                         2
Case: 23-30092      Document: 00516957192           Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/06/2023

                                     No. 23-30092

   behind each part of the sentencing guidelines.” United States v. Duarte, 569
   F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Kimbrough does not disturb the
   presumption of reasonableness given to Weeks’s within-guidelines sentence,
   “even if the relevant Guideline is not empirically based.” United States v.
   Lara, 23 F.4th 459, 485 (5th Cir.) (citing United States v. Mondragon-
   Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366–67 (5th Cir. 2009)), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2790
   (2022). Moreover, the district court considered Weeks’s argument that
   there is no empirical basis for the methamphetamine guideline’s purity
   distinctions but declined to deviate from the Guidelines on that basis.
   Weeks’s argument is therefore insufficient to rebut the presumption that his
   within guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Lara, 23 F.4th at
   485-86; United States v. Rebulloza, 16 F.4th 480, 485 (5th Cir. 2021).
          Weeks’s argument that the application of the Guideline results in
   unwarranted sentencing disparities is insufficient to rebut the presumption
   of reasonableness afforded to his within-guidelines sentence. Although “the
   need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with
   similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct” is a factor
   that district courts consider, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), the district court in
   this case expressly considered that factor, along with all the § 3553(a) factors,
   in imposing sentence. Weeks does not argue—and the record does not
   reflect—that his sentence fails to account for a factor that should receive
   significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper
   factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.
   See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The district
   court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          3