United States v. Winfield

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 29, 2024
• Docket: 23-30440
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-30440 Document: 51-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/29/2024

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

FILED No. 23-30440 February 29, 2024 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Julius Winfield, III,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:22-CR-169-1 ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Julius Winfield, III, contests his within-Guidelines 78-months’ sentence, following his guilty-plea conviction for distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (prohibiting distribution of controlled substance), (b)(1)(C) (outlining penalty). He asserts the court abused its discretion by imposing a substantively-

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-30440 Document: 51-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/29/2024

No. 23-30440

unreasonable sentence based on the Sentencing Guidelines’ disparate treatment of pure methamphetamine relative to a methamphetamine mixture. Winfield maintains this distinction lacks an empirical basis and results in unjust sentences and unwarranted sentencing disparities. Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Winfield’s within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable, and he has failed to rebut this presumption or show the court otherwise abused its discretion. See United States v. Lara, 23 F.4th 459, 485–86 (5th Cir. 2022) (rejecting empirical challenge); United States v. Douglas, 957 F.3d 602, 609–10 (5th Cir. 2020) (“[Defendant] is effectively asking us to reweigh the district court’s calculus of the relevant factors, which we will not do”.); United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 338–39 (5th Cir. 2016) (“[A] defendant is entitled to have his sentence set by a judge aware of the discretion [to vary] . . . . [Nevertheless,] a district judge is never required to vary”. (emphasis in original) (citation omitted)). AFFIRMED.