Court Opinion

ID: 9378924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 00:00:31.594446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.270923
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60073        Document: 00516674649             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/13/2023

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

                                      No. 22-60073                                   FILED
                                                                                March 13, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Lamar McDonald,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                              USDC No. 1:19-CR-107-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Lamar McDonald was convicted after a jury trial of one count of
   conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a
   substance or mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine and a
   mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine;
   two counts of possessing with intent to distribute a mixture of substance

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60073      Document: 00516674649          Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/13/2023

                                    No. 22-60073

   containing a detectable amount of cocaine; and two counts of attempting to
   distribute a mixture of substance containing a detectable amount of
   methamphetamine. On appeal, McDonald challenges the sufficiency of the
   evidence to support his convictions. He further argues that the district court
   incorrectly applied three sentencing enhancements.
          First, because McDonald preserved his sufficiency issue in the district
   court, our review is de novo. See United States v. Carbins, 882 F.3d 557, 562-
   63 (5th Cir. 2018). In reviewing preserved sufficiency claims, we determine
   whether “after viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light
   most favorable to the [Government], any rational trier of fact could have
   found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
   United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc)
   (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
          To prove conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and
   methamphetamine, the Government must show: “(1) two or more persons,
   directly or indirectly, reached an agreement to possess with the intent to
   distribute a controlled substance; (2) the defendant knew of the agreement;
   (3) the defendant voluntarily participated in the agreement; and (4) the
   overall scope of the conspiracy involved the drug amount in the charged
   crime.” United States v. Bowen, 818 F.3d 179, 186 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal
   quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). A defendant is guilty of an
   attempt crime under 21 U.S.C. § 846 when, acting with the kind of culpability
   otherwise required to commit a substantive offense, he engages in conduct
   that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the offense. United
   States v. Redd, 355 F.3d 866, 872-73 (5th Cir. 2003). To prove distribution of
   methamphetamine, the Government must show: “(1) knowledge, (2)
   possession [of the illegal substance], and (3) intent to distribute.” United
   States v. Garza, 990 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir. 1993). When viewing the evidence
   and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Government,

                                             2
Case: 22-60073      Document: 00516674649           Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/13/2023

                                     No. 22-60073

   we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support McDonald’s
   convictions. See Vargos-Ocampo, 747 F.3d at 301.
          Next, we review a denial of a motion for new trial for abuse of
   discretion. United States v. Franklin, 561 F.3d 398, 405 (5th Cir. 2009).
   “Generally, motions for new trial are disfavored and must be reviewed with
   great caution.” United States v. Piazza, 647 F.3d 559, 565 (5th Cir. 2011).
   We conclude that the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence
   and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McDonald’s
   motion for a new trial.
          Finally, McDonald challenges three sentencing enhancements
   applied to the calculation of his offense level. We review de novo a district
   court’s interpretation or application of the Sentencing Guidelines and its
   factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Muniz, 803 F.3d 709, 712
   (5th Cir. 2015). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err when
   it determined that the record supported a two-level enhancement under
   U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm by a coconspirator. See
   United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did
   not clearly err in applying a U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement because the
   court could reasonably infer that the methamphetamine involved in the drug-
   trafficking conspiracy was imported from Mexico. United States v. Serfass,
   684 F.3d 548, 550, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2012). The district court did not clearly
   err in applying a three-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) because
   the evidence supported a finding that McDonald managed or supervised at
   least five participants in the criminal activity. See United States v. Zuniga, 720
   F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013).
          AFFIRMED.

                                               3