Court Opinion

ID: 9895709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 16:01:21.442982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:54.941867
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10093        Document: 00516959850             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/07/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10093
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               November 7, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   James Henry Kelley, III,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                       USDC Nos. 4:20-CR-243-1, 4:22-CV-81
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         James Henry Kelley, III, pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to
   possession of 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a
   detectable amount of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it, in
   violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B). The district court granted
   Kelley’s motion for a downward variance based on a policy disagreement

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10093      Document: 00516959850            Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                      No. 23-10093

   with the methamphetamine guidelines. Relevant here, the district court
   overruled the Government’s objection to the probation officer’s
   recommendation not to apply a two-level reckless endangerment
   enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2; the district court agreed that an
   enhancement was not warranted based on Kelley’s conduct. The district
   court sentenced Kelley to 180 months of imprisonment and imposed a four-
   year term of supervised release.
          Kelley now challenges his guilty plea and sentence, arguing that both
   were based on erroneous material information or assumptions. He also filed
   an opposed motion requesting that this court take judicial notice of the docket
   sheet and documents filed in a personal injury lawsuit that he filed against the
   City of Fort Worth—documents that were not before the district court but
   which he contends show that his conduct was not reckless, contrary to the
   Government’s arguments at sentencing. His opposed motion to modify the
   record on appeal by supplementing the record with those same documents
   was previously denied by this court.
          Contrary to Kelley’s assertion, the documents filed in Kelley’s
   personal injury lawsuit are not necessary to resolve the appeal. Nevertheless,
   we take judicial notice of the fact that Kelley filed a personal injury lawsuit
   against the City of Fort Worth in Tarrant County, Texas, on August 24,
   2022, seeking damages for the injuries he sustained during an August 24,
   2020 vehicular collision. In all other respects, the motion is denied.
          With respect to his guilty plea, Kelley raises no argument that his
   guilty plea was induced by threats, improper coercion, or false promises.
   Thus, his guilty-plea challenge does not implicate the voluntary nature of his
   plea but only whether his plea was knowing, which requires a full
   understanding of the essential components and consequences of a guilty plea.
   See United States v. Hernandez, 234 F.3d 252, 254–55 & n.3 (5th Cir. 2000).

                                           2
Case: 23-10093      Document: 00516959850          Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                    No. 23-10093

   As an initial matter, the Government correctly argues that, insofar as Kelley
   raised a “thinly-veiled” claim under Brady v. Maryland, 3737 U.S. 83 (1963),
   Kelley’s unconditional guilty plea waived any such claim, see United States v.
   Conroy, 567 F.3d 174, 178–79 (5th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
          As for whether Kelley’s plea was knowing, the record reflects that the
   magistrate judge complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal
   Procedure 11, and that Kelley understood the nature of the charges, i.e., the
   elements of the offense, as well as the consequences of his guilty plea, and the
   nature of the constitutional protections he was waiving. See Boykin v.
   Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 (1969); United States v. Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d
   361, 366 (5th Cir. 2014). Kelley has not identified any error by the magistrate
   judge, much less shown a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he
   would not have entered a guilty plea. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez,
   542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Moreover, Kelley has not shown that his guilty plea
   was based on an erroneous fact that was material to whether he knowingly
   possessed a controlled substance containing 50 grams or more of a detectable
   amount of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it. Accordingly,
   we find that Kelley’s guilty plea was knowing.
          With respect to his sentence, Kelley argues that the district court
   committed a procedural error by basing the sentence on erroneous material
   information or assumptions regarding the collision. We find that Kelley
   preserved this issue on appeal by arguing in the district court that the
   presentence report’s description of the collision between his motorcycle and
   the patrol car was not accurate—specifically, by arguing that it was the fault
   of the police officer, who did not pull away from the curb “to clear a path”
   for the pursuit of Kelley but instead positioned the patrol car directly in the
   path of Kelley’s motorcycle. See United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th
   Cir. 2009).

                                          3
Case: 23-10093      Document: 00516959850           Page: 4    Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                     No. 23-10093

          We review a sentencing challenge under a deferential abuse-of-
   discretion standard regardless of whether the sentence is inside or outside
   the Guidelines range. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We
   “must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural
   error.” Id. Procedural errors include “selecting a sentence based on clearly
   erroneous facts.” Id. “Sentences based upon erroneous and material
   information or assumptions violate due process.” United States v. Gentry,
   941 F.3d 767, 788 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted).
          Kelley has not satisfied his burden of establishing that the district
   court relied on erroneous information in choosing his sentence. See United
   States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 331 (5th Cir. 2013). True enough, the district
   court stated—in response to Kelley’s argument that the collision was not
   caused by his reckless conduct but by the officer’s reckless conduct—that it
   could not “hold it in [Kelley’s] favor that he didn’t yield. I mean, he ran, so
   he’s put in motion what happened.” But Kelley has not shown on appeal
   that the statements that he failed to yield and that he ran from officers were
   based on clearly erroneous facts. And though the Government urged the
   district court to impose a 188-month sentence based in part on Kelley’s
   reckless conduct, the district court gave no indication that it agreed with the
   Government’s assertion that Kelley was reckless and put others in danger.
   Indeed, the court rejected that argument in overruling the Government’s
   objection to the decision not to apply an enhancement or upward departure
   or variance based on Kelley’s conduct.
          Finally, it is plausible from the record as a whole that the district court
   did not rely on erroneous facts regarding the collision in imposing the 180-
   month sentence, which though higher than the 151-month sentence Kelley
   requested was lower than the sentence recommended by the Government.
   In imposing the sentence, the district court made no mention of Kelley’s

                                           4
Case: 23-10093     Document: 00516959850           Page: 5   Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                    No. 23-10093

   conduct as characterized by the Government. Rather, the court stated that it
   considered all of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as
   well as the conduct that Kelley admitted in his factual resume. Kelley has not
   shown that the district court relied on any erroneous material facts in
   imposing the sentence or otherwise committed a procedural error at
   sentencing.
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The motion for
   judicial notice is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

                                         5