United States v. Kendra Ward
687 F. App'x 354
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kendra Ward pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B).
- District court imposed a 220-month sentence, which was below the Guidelines range; Ward appealed as procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
- Ward sought a § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction but was denied because she maintained contact with a co-defendant/romantic partner and did not withdraw from criminal associations or comply with pretrial-release conditions.
- Ward argued the district court improperly limited the scope of a § 5K1.1 downward departure by considering her offense conduct and the prosecutor’s charging decision (which capped her statutory maximum at 240 months).
- She also argued the court improperly considered uncharged conduct and the effect of the prosecutor’s charging decision in imposing sentence.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed denial of § 3E1.1 de novo for legal error (finding none) and reviewed the § 5K1.1 and sentencing-procedure claims for plain error because Ward did not raise them below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction | Ward: she met almost all criteria and continued contact with co-defendant shouldn’t negate reduction | Govt/District: continued associations and failure to comply with release conditions are inconsistent with acceptance | Court: No error — district court permissibly denied reduction for inconsistent conduct |
| Scope of § 5K1.1 departure (whether limited by charged statutory maximum) | Ward: district court improperly limited downward departure by considering that charges capped her statutory maximum | Govt/District: court may consider assistance plus other factors when setting extent of departure | Court: Reviewed for plain error; even assuming conflation, Ward failed to show her substantial rights were affected; no reversible error |
| Consideration of uncharged conduct and charging decision in sentencing | Ward: sentence unreasonable because court improperly relied on uncharged conduct and prosecutor’s charging choice | Govt/District: uncharged conduct and charging context are relevant § 3553(a) factors and extent of assistance is within court’s discretion | Court: No plain error — district court properly considered relevant conduct and § 3553(a) factors |
| Standard of review for unpreserved sentencing claims | Ward: challenges raised on appeal though not below | Govt/District: errors, if any, subject to plain-error review | Court: Applied plain-error standard (Puckett) and found no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hooten, 942 F.2d 878 (5th Cir. 1991) (conduct inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility can deny § 3E1.1 reduction)
- United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331 (5th Cir.) (district court must base extent of § 5K1.1 departure on assistance-related concerns; errors in step formulation may be harmless)
- United States v. Desselle, 450 F.3d 179 (5th Cir. 2006) (limitations on appellate review where district court bases § 5K1.1 departure on impermissible factors)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for unpreserved errors)
- United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643 (5th Cir.) (plaintiff must show but-for effect on sentence to establish plain error)