United States v. Jeremy Allen
686 F. App'x 289
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jeremy Gene Allen pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 121 months within the advisory Guidelines range.
- The Presentence Report (PSR) attributed 4.2 kilograms of methamphetamine to Allen as relevant conduct.
- Allen admitted in a post-arrest statement to receiving the amounts attributed to him, and he did not show the PSR to be materially inaccurate.
- Allen argued the attributed quantities were not part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as his offense and therefore should not count as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3.
- He also argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court overstated the seriousness of his offense and failed to account adequately for his limited role and actual quantities he handled.
- The district court adopted the PSR, found the quantity attribution plausible, and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence; Allen appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 4.2 kg attributed as relevant conduct was properly included | Allen: past transactions were not part of same course of conduct or common scheme/plan, so not §1B1.3 relevant conduct | Government/District Court: PSR and Allen's admissions support finding transactions are sufficiently connected; temporal proximity/source sameness not dispositive | Court affirmed: quantity finding plausible and supported by PSR and admissions |
| Standard of review for factual finding on relevant conduct | Allen: challenges attribution (preserved to extent) | Government: factual finding reviewed for clear error, upheld if supported by preponderance and plausible | Court applied clear-error standard and upheld district court |
| Whether sentence was substantively unreasonable | Allen: court overstated offense scope and failed to weigh his low-level role/actual quantities | Government/District Court: judge made individualized §3553(a) inquiry and reasonably imposed within-Guidelines sentence | Court affirmed: within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether lack of temporal proximity/source defeats common scheme finding | Allen: transactions lacked temporal/source connection, so not common scheme | Government: §1B1.3 commentary and Fifth Circuit precedent treat those factors as non-dispositive; common factor suffice | Court held temporal/source factors are not dispositive; connections here adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Imo, 739 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing district court factual findings on relevant conduct)
- United States v. Buck, 324 F.3d 786 (5th Cir. 2003) (review for clear error when defendant preserves challenge)
- United States v. Londono, 285 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2002) (court may adopt PSR findings unless shown materially untrue)
- United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 1998) (reliability of PSR adopted by district court)
- United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 2009) (temporal proximity/source not dispositive for common scheme analysis)
- United States v. Harris, 740 F.3d 956 (5th Cir. 2014) (relevant-conduct common-factor analysis)
- United States v. Moore, 927 F.2d 825 (5th Cir. 1991) (connections among transactions can establish common scheme)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentences; deference to within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (presumption that within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable)
- United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2008) (disagreement with sentencing outcome not a basis for reversal)