693 F. App'x 327
5th Cir.2017Background
- Kacey Croxton pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
- The district court granted the Government a § 5K1.1 downward departure and sentenced Croxton to 180 months imprisonment plus three years supervised release, below the Guidelines range.
- The Presentence Report applied a two‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) for distribution of imported methamphetamine based on drugs imported from Mexico.
- Croxton did not object to the enhancement below; she raised the challenge for the first time on appeal, so review is for plain error.
- On appeal Croxton argued (1) she lacked knowledge that the drugs were imported, and (2) importation should not count as relevant conduct under § 1B1.3, and separately argued the methamphetamine Guideline is not empirically grounded and yields an unreasonable sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement | Croxton: no evidence she knew drugs were imported, so enhancement requires knowledge | Government: enhancement applies based on imported methamphetamine regardless of defendant's knowledge | Enhancement applies; Court follows binding precedent that knowledge not required |
| Whether importation must be relevant conduct under § 1B1.3 | Croxton: importation must qualify as relevant conduct to trigger enhancement | Government: distribution/possession of imported methamphetamine alone suffices | Importation alone suffices; enhancement properly applied |
| Preservation/plain‑error review | Croxton: raised on appeal though not preserved below | Government: issue was forfeited; plain‑error standard applies | Review limited to plain error; no basis to reverse |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence / challenge to § 2D1.1 empirical basis | Croxton: Guideline is not empirically based and produces overly severe sentences inconsistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | Government: Guideline valid; general disagreement insufficient to show unreasonableness | Argument foreclosed by precedent; sentence not substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2012) (holding § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement applies regardless of defendant's knowledge of importation)
- United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914 (5th Cir. 2014) (distribution or possession with intent to distribute imported methamphetamine alone may trigger § 2D1.1(b)(5))
- United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2002) (panel cannot overrule prior panel precedent)
- United States v. Benitez, 809 F.3d 243 (5th Cir. 2015) (discussing forfeiture and plain‑error review standards)
- United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2009) (rejecting challenge to empirical basis of methamphetamine Guideline)
- United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2007) (plain‑error review for sentencing challenges raised first on appeal)
- United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2010) (general disagreement with sentence does not establish substantive unreasonableness)
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.