Court Opinion

ID: 9963325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 00:00:42.159628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:45.975362
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30673            Document: 53-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/24/2024

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

                                    No. 23-30673                                       FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                                   April 24, 2024
                                  ____________                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Kenneth Ray Smith,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Louisiana
                             USDC No. 5:22-CR-21-4
                   ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Kenneth Ray Smith pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine and to possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug
trafficking, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii) and 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1). The district court sentenced Smith at the bottom of the advisory
guidelines range to 140 months of imprisonment for the drug offense and
       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 23-30673        Document: 53-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                  No. 23-30673

imposed the consecutive 60-month statutory minimum term of
imprisonment for the firearm offense. The court also sentenced Smith to
concurrent four-year terms of supervised release.
       In this appeal of his sentence, Smith first argues that the district court
clearly erred by applying a two-level “drug premises” enhancement under
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) in that it improperly determined that the primary
purpose of his residence was drug distribution. Because Smith challenged
the application of the Section 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement in the district court
on the same ground that he raises here, we review the district court’s
interpretation or application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its
factual findings for clear error. United States v. Muniz, 803 F.3d 709, 712 (5th
Cir. 2015). The application of Section 2D1.1(b)(12) is a factual question we
review for clear error. United States v. Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d 260, 263 (5th
Cir. 2017).
       The district court had discretion to rely on unrebutted facts set forth
in the presentence report in making its findings of fact under the Guidelines.
See United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012). Based on those
facts and the testimony at sentencing, the district court could have reasonably
inferred that the sale and storage of drugs for distribution was one of the
primary uses for Smith’s residence. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.17; United
States v. Ramos-Delgado, 763 F.3d 398, 400 (5th Cir. 2014). The fact that
Smith also used the premises as a place to live does not mandate a different
conclusion. See United States v. Galicia, 983 F.3d 842, 844–45 (5th Cir.
2020). Therefore, the district court did not clearly err in applying the
Section 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement. See Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d at 263.
       Second, Smith argues that the district court did not adequately
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, such as his personal history and
characteristics and the goal of just punishment, and thus imposed a

                                       2
Case: 23-30673        Document: 53-1       Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                  No. 23-30673

substantively unreasonable sentence. We review preserved challenges to the
substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Vargas, 21 F.4th 332, 334 (5th Cir. 2021).
       The district court is required to impose a sentence that is sufficient
but not greater than necessary to comply with the sentencing aims of
Section 3553(a). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 n.6 (2007). Sentences
within a properly calculated Guidelines range, as in this case, are presumed
to be substantively reasonable. United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 473
(5th Cir. 2006). “When reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, the court
will infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set
forth in the Guidelines.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.
2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A defendant may rebut the
presumption of reasonableness by establishing that the sentence imposed
fails to account for a factor that should be afforded significant weight, affords
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear
error of judgment in balancing the factors. Id.
       Smith’s argument does not defeat the presumption that his sentence
is reasonable. See id. His assertion that the district court wrongly weighed
the Section 3553(a) factors is also without merit. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51–52;
United States v. Aldawsari, 740 F.3d 1015, 1021–22 (5th Cir. 2014).
       AFFIRMED.

                                       3