United States v. Sherry Walter
683 F. App'x 323
5th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Sherry Walter convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846).
- District court applied enhancements: trafficking in imported methamphetamine and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) (premises primarily used for distribution).
- Court relied on the presentence report (PSR), PSR addendum with supplier test-sample purity data, and law-enforcement testimony.
- District court extrapolated methamphetamine quantity and purity from supplier samples to calculate base offense level.
- Sentence imposed: 240 months (a downward variance from the Guidelines range of 360–480 months). Walter appealed challenging the enhancements, quantity extrapolation, and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walter) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enhancement for trafficking in imported methamphetamine was clear error | Enhancement was improper | Precedent supports enhancement | Held against Walter (precedent forecloses claim) |
| Whether § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement for principal use of premises was clear error | Premises were not primarily used for distribution | PSR and officer testimony showed distribution was a main purpose | Held against Walter (district court’s finding not implausible) |
| Whether court clearly erred in extrapolating drug quantity/purity | Quantity/purity were improperly extrapolated from supplier samples | Court may extrapolate from reliable information in PSR/addendum | Held against Walter (extrapolation supported by unrebutted PSR data) |
| Whether the 240-month below-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable | Sentence was substantively unreasonable | District court adequately considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; variance justified | Held against Walter (sentence not substantively unreasonable) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914 (5th Cir. 2014) (foreclosing challenge to imported-drug enhancement)
- United States v. Haines, 803 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2015) (standards for § 2D1.1(b)(12) premises-use findings)
- United States v. Ayala, 47 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 1995) (evidence supporting premises-use enhancement)
- United States v. Ekanem, 555 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 2009) (clear-error standard for factual findings)
- United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2006) (permitting extrapolation of drug quantity from reliable information)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 666 F.3d 944 (5th Cir. 2012) (extrapolation principles for drug quantity)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (deference to district court’s sentencing variance under § 3553(a))
- United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2009) (appellate review of sentencing variance)