United States v. Shawn Serfass
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12197
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Defendant-appellant Shawn Serfass pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- District court applied a two-level § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement for alleged importation of methamphetamine over Serfass’s objection to the knowledge requirement.
- Serfass admitted in a proffer to purchasing methamphetamine from a named individual on about 24 occasions and selling to others.
- District court calculated a guidelines range of 151–188 months and sentenced Serfass to 160 months with three years of supervised release.
- On appeal, the issue is whether § 2D1.1(b)(5) applies regardless of knowledge that the methamphetamine was imported.
- The panel affirms, holding that the enhancement applies even if Serfass did not know the methamphetamine was imported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 2D1.1(b)(5) require knowledge of importation? | Serfass argues knowledge of importation is required. | United States argues no knowledge requirement for importation offenses. | Enhancement applies without knowledge of importation. |
| Does the plain language limit the knowledge qualifier to manufacture-from-listed-chemicals rather than importation of the end product? | Serfass reads knowledge to apply to finished product importation as well. | Government contends knowledge applies only to listed-chemical manufacture, not end-product importation. | Plain language limits knowledge to manufacture-from-listed-chemicals; importation lacks scienter. |
| Is imposing § 2D1.1(b)(5) without knowledge of importation consistent with due process? | Serfass argues potential due process issues with strict liability in sentencing. | Government contends no due process violation given sentencing role and rational deterrence. | No due process violation; enhancement valid regardless of knowledge. |
| Was there sufficient evidence that the methamphetamine was imported for the enhancement? | Spoke evidence supports importation by drug source chain. | Challenged sufficiency of importation proof. | District court did not clearly err; preponderance standard satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (U.S. 2009) (applies ordinary English grammar to interpret scienter in statutes)
- Singleton, 946 F.2d 23 (5th Cir. 1991) (guidelines-interpretation and mens rea considerations)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 630 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 2011) (breathes into question of knowledge in enhancements)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 666 F.3d 944 (5th Cir. 2012) (addressed knowledge of importation for § 2D1.1(b)(5))
- United States v. Bustillos-Pena, 612 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 2010) (due process considerations in sentencing enhancements)
- Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1993) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius principle cited in statutory interpretation)
- Valencia-Gonzales v. United States, 172 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 1999) (punishing defendant on actual drug carried rather than believed drug)