United States v. Drost

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 9, 2026
• Docket: 25-50421
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-50421 Document: 86-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-50421 FILED March 9, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Edward James Drost,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-2781-1 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Defendant-Appellant Edward James Drost appeals the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to transport illegal aliens. He argues that the district court committed procedural error when it stated that it could not consider his need for medical care as a sentencing factor.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50421 Document: 86-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2026

No. 25-50421

Although the district court expressly stated that it could not consider Drost’s need for medical care, this statement, evaluated in the context of the entire sentencing hearing, see United States v Diaz Sanchez, 714 F.3d 289, 294 (5th Cir. 2013) (“We focus on the district court’s statements in the context of the sentencing proceeding as a whole.”), referred to the costs of medical care and not Drost’s actual need for medical care. The record reveals that the district court either explicitly or implicitly considered Drost’s need for medical care. Accordingly, the district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise. AFFIRMED. The accompanying motion to expedite is DISMISSED as moot.