United States v. McMahon

Opinion

Case: 25-40111 Document: 85-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2026

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

_____________ FILED July 27, 2026

No. 25-40111 Lyle W. Cayce consolidated with Clerk No. 25-40548 Summary Calendar

_____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Leotis Cornelius McMahon,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:24-CR-64-1

______________________________

Before Haynes, Graves, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Leotis Cornelius McMahon was convicted of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual) and possession of a firearm by a felon, and he was sentenced within the applicable guidelines range to a total of 400 months of imprisonment. On appeal, he challenges

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-40111 Document: 85-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2026

No. 25-40111 c/w No. 25-40548

the two-level enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, arguing that the evidence failed to establish that drug activity was a primary or principal use of the premises. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) & comment. (n.17).

As an initial matter, the statements of McMahon’s counsel at sentencing did not waive the specific issue he argues on appeal. See United States v. Arviso-Mata, 442 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006). However, because McMahon did not clearly raise the issue in the district court, our review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

We conclude that the district court did not commit an error that was clear or obvious in finding that the enhancement applied. A district court is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the facts in determining whether an enhancement applies. United States v. Ramos-Delgado, 763 F.3d 398, 400 (5th Cir. 2014). In addition, we have held there is a “low bar” for establishing a primary use of the premises was drug manufacturing or distribution. United States v. Galicia, 983 F.3d 842, 845 (5th Cir. 2020). Here, the undisputed evidence described in the presentence report supports a reasonable inference that one of the primary uses of McMahon’s residence was to store, manufacture, and prepare controlled substances for distribution.

AFFIRMED.