Court Opinion

ID: 9402542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 00:00:57.731815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.626863
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10352        Document: 00516788887             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/15/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-10352
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                  June 15, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Alfred John McDonald,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:20-CR-242-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Alfred John McDonald pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with
   intent to distribute a controlled substance. The presentence report (PSR)
   assigned a base offense level of 30 based on 1,139.9 kilograms of marijuana.
   Among other adjustments, the PSR added two levels under U.S.S.G.
   § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing a dangerous weapon. McDonald was assigned

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10352        Document: 00516788887           Page: 2     Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                       No. 22-10352

   14 criminal history points resulting in a criminal history category VI. Twelve
   of those points were from four aggravated robberies committed in 1995. This
   combination resulted in a recommended guidelines range of 360 to 480
   months in prison. McDonald filed objections to the drug quantity finding,
   the dangerous-weapon enhancement, and his criminal history score. The
   district court overruled all the objections.         The district court granted
   McDonald a downward variance and sentenced him to 150 months in prison
   and four years of supervised release.
             McDonald challenges district court’s factual finding on drug quantity
   based on drug ledgers and other documents. We review the district court’s
   drug-quantity finding for clear error when, as here, a defendant objects to the
   finding in the district court and will affirm the quantity finding if it is plausible
   in the light of the entire record. United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240,
   246 (5th Cir. 2005). The evidence supports the plausibility of the district
   court’s interpretation of the ledgers and documents, and McDonald has not
   shown otherwise. See United States v. Kearby, 943 F.3d 969, 974 (5th Cir.
   2019); United States v. Fields, 932 F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir. 2019).
             Next, McDonald argues that the district court erred by assigning 12 of
   the 14 criminal history points because the 1995 offenses were too far in the
   past to qualify for criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(1).
   McDonald challenges the finding that the relevant conduct for the current
   offense began in 2017. Relevant conduct is a factual question subject to clear
   error review. United States v. Ekanem, 555 F.3d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 2009).
   Contrary to McDonald’s assertion, the relevant conduct finding was not
   based on unsupported statements in the PSR and was plausible in the light of
   the record as a whole. See Kearby, 943 F.3d at 974 n.3; Betancourt, 422 F.3d
   at 246.

                                                2
Case: 22-10352     Document: 00516788887           Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                    No. 22-10352

          Finally, McDonald argues that the district court erred in applying a
   two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon under
   § 2D1.1(b)(1). The district court’s application of § 2D1.1(b)(1) is a factual
   finding reviewed for clear error. United States v. King, 773 F.3d 48, 53 (5th
   Cir. 2014). The enhancement “reflects the increased danger of violence
   when drug traffickers possess weapons,” and it should be applied “if the
   weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was
   connected with the offense.” See § 2D1.1, comment. (n.11(A)). Contrary to
   McDonald’s argument, the district court in this case stated without
   ambiguity that it was applying the enhancement because the evidence
   established that the firearm was in the same location as the drugs and drug
   paraphernalia and could be used to protect the drug trafficking. See King, 773
   F.3d at 53. Accordingly, it is not clearly improbable that the weapon was
   connected to the offense.     See id.   The district court’s application of
   § 2D1.1(b)(1) was not clearly erroneous.
          AFFIRMED.

                                              3