United States v. Derrick Cooper
669 F. App'x 243
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Derrick Dewayne Cooper pleaded guilty (no plea agreement) to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥50 grams methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B).
- District court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence: 84 months imprisonment, 5 years supervised release, $1,000 fine, $100 special assessment.
- Cooper argued on appeal that he was entitled to a role-based reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2) or, alternatively, a downward departure/variance for a minor or minimal role.
- At sentencing Cooper had confirmed he sought a downward departure/variance (not a § 3B1.2 adjustment), and therefore appellate review is limited by forfeiture/waiver principles.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded Cooper abandoned any § 3B1.2 claim by inadequate briefing and could not show plain error as to factual findings; also the Guidelines barred downward departure on mitigating-role grounds under § 5K2.0(d)(3), so any district-court belief it lacked authority was not erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cooper was entitled to a § 3B1.2 mitigating-role adjustment | Cooper contended he had a minor/minimal role meriting an offense-level reduction | District court denied; government opposed | Abandoned on appeal for inadequate briefing; not reviewed |
| Whether district court erred by refusing a downward departure/variance for mitigating role | Cooper sought departure/variance at sentencing for lesser role | District court declined to depart or explicitly rule; government argued no error | Forfeited/waived; plain-error review unavailable for fact questions; no review because Guidelines prohibit departure on that basis |
| Whether failure to expressly rule on objection to denial of downward departure required reversal | Cooper argued district court failed to expressly rule on his objection | Government argued reviewbar applies and court lacked authority to depart anyway | No review; any perceived lack of authority was correct under § 5K2.0(d)(3) |
| Whether plain-error relief is available for factual sentencing disputes after forfeiture | Cooper sought review under plain-error standard | Government asserted factual disputes cannot be plain error if resolvable at sentencing | Court held factual issues capable of district-court resolution cannot be plain error; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes departures, adjustments, variances)
- Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116 (5th Cir. 1986) (appellate briefs by represented litigants get no liberal construction)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for forfeited sentencing objections)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (issues inadequately briefed are abandoned)
- United States v. Ceballos, 789 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 2015) (waived errors are unreviewable)
- United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1991) (factual questions resolvable at sentencing cannot constitute plain error)
- United States v. Hernandez, 457 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2006) (bar on reviewing district-court refusal to depart absent erroneous belief about authority)