Court Opinion

ID: 9929241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 01:00:45.754969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:19.152911
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50970         Document: 00517052914             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/01/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50970
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               February 1, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Melvin Dallas Godsey; Juan Romero-Fuentes,

                                              Defendants—Appellants.
                      ______________________________

                     Appeals from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                      USDC Nos. 7:22-CR-116-2, 7:22-CR-116-3
                     ______________________________

   Before Davis, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Melvin Dallas Godsey and Juan Romero-Fuentes were convicted
   following a jury trial of conspiring to knowingly and intentionally possess with
   intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. Godsey
   was sentenced to 212 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50970      Document: 00517052914          Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/01/2024

                                    No. 22-50970

   supervised release, and Romero-Fuentes was sentenced to 276 months of
   imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release.
          On appeal, Godsey argues that the district court erred in refusing to
   grant his request for trial counsel’s removal and the appointment of
   substitute counsel and that the court erred in its relevant conduct drug
   quantity calculation. Romero-Fuentes asserts that his within-guidelines
   sentence was substantively unreasonable, arguing that the sentence was
   greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
   and that the guidelines range overrepresented the seriousness of his offense
   because the methamphetamine Guideline is not empirically based and the
   ratio for actual methamphetamine and methamphetamine mixture is
   arbitrary.
          First, Godsey fails to show that the district court abused its discretion
   in denying the motion to remove and substitute appointed counsel. See
   United States v. Mitchell, 709 F.3d 436, 441 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v.
   Young, 482 F.2d 993, 995-96 (5th Cir. 1973).           Contrary to Godsey’s
   assertions, his trial counsel actively worked on Godsey’s behalf, and Godsey
   does not show that there was a complete breakdown in communication or an
   irreconcilable conflict which led to an unjust verdict. See Mitchell, 709 F.3d
   at 441-42; United States v. Simpson, 645 F.3d 300, 307-08 (5th Cir. 2011);
   Young, 482 F.2d at 995-96.
          We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the
   Guidelines de novo and the district court’s factual findings, such as its drug
   quantity determination, for clear error. See United States v. Barfield, 941 F.3d
   757, 761 (5th Cir. 2019). The district court adopted the presentence report
   (PSR), which generally has sufficient indicia of reliability and relied on the
   coconspirator’s testimony. See United States v. Moton, 951 F.3d 639, 645 (5th
   Cir. 2020); United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012). The

                                          2
Case: 22-50970        Document: 00517052914        Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/01/2024

                                    No. 22-50970

   coconspirator’s testimony was reliable, see United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d
   252, 257, 266-67 (5th Cir. 2006), and Godsey did not offer any evidence to
   the contrary, see United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 591 (5th Cir. 2013).
   Additionally, the district court’s drug quantity calculation of 1,077.3 grams
   of actual methamphetamine was plausible in light of the record as a whole.
   See Barfield, 941 F.3d at 761; United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246-
   48 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Harris, 702 F.3d at 230. The district court
   therefore did not clearly err in its drug quantity determination. See Barfield,
   941 F.3d at 761.
          Next, we review Romero-Fuentes’s claim that his within-guidelines
   sentence was greater than necessary to comply with the sentencing goals of
   § 3553(a) for an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
   (2007); United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017).
   Romero-Fuentes has not shown that the district court considered an
   improper factor, failed to consider a relevant factor, or committed a clear
   error of judgment in balancing the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v.
   Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Romero-Fuentes has
   failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his within-
   guidelines sentence and has not shown that the district court abused its
   discretion. See Hernandez, 876 F.3d at 166-67; Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186.
          Lastly, Romero-Fuentes concedes that his substantive reasonableness
   argument regarding the methamphetamine Guideline is foreclosed. See
   United States v. Lara, 23 F.4th 459, 486 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 142 S.
   Ct. 2790 (2022). While the district court has the discretion to sentence a
   defendant based on policy disagreements with how the Guidelines treat
   different forms of methamphetamine, it is not required to do so, and a within-
   guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable merely because the
   methamphetamine Guideline is “not empirically-based.” Id.; see United

                                          3
Case: 22-50970     Document: 00517052914         Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/01/2024

                                  No. 22-50970

   States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 338-39 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v.
   Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).
         The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

                                       4