United States v. Stubblefield ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50217 Document: 00516666199 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50217
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ March 6, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Chelsie Shanae Stubblefield,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:21-CR-231-3
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Chelsie Shanae Stubblefield appeals the 360-month sentence imposed
following her guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent
to distribute methamphetamine. We VACATE the sentence and
REMAND because of the need for additional fact findings.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50217 Document: 00516666199 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2023
No. 22-50217
When calculating the base offense level, the district court held
Stubblefield responsible for all of the methamphetamine attributable to the
conspiracy under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. Stubblefield argues that the district court
failed to make sufficient factual findings to support its relevant conduct
findings. When the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines
is purely legal, our review is de novo. See United States v. Zapata-Lara, 615
F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir. 2010).
In order to hold Stubblefield accountable for the 630 grams of
methamphetamine involved in the conspiracy, the district court was required
to make specific findings that the acts and omissions of the others involved
constituted “relevant conduct,” i.e., that the other transactions were within
the scope of a joint criminal activity, in furtherance of that activity, and
reasonably foreseeable to Stubblefield. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B); § 1B1.3, cmt.
n.3(D); see, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 14 F.4th 342, 347 (5th Cir. 2021),
cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 928 (2022); United States v. Smith, 13 F.3d 860, 864–
65 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Evbuomwan, 992 F.2d 70, 72 (5th Cir.
1993).
During sentencing, the district court determined that the 630 grams
of methamphetamine attributed to the conspiracy was “reasonably
foreseeable” to Stubblefield, but the court failed to make specific findings
concerning the scope of the criminal activity she agreed to jointly undertake,
or whether the entire amount of methamphetamine was within that scope or
in furtherance of that activity.
Additionally, the district court’s rationale for its relevant conduct
determination is not implicit in its adoption of the presentence report, which
did not make factual findings that would allow making Stubblefield
accountable for jointly undertaken criminal activity. See Smith, 13 F.3d at
867; Evbuomwan, 992 F.2d at 74. Because the district court’s reasoning is
2
Case: 22-50217 Document: 00516666199 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/06/2023
No. 22-50217
not apparent from the record, we cannot speculate as to the rationale for its
relevant conduct determination. See Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d at 391.
We VACATE the sentence and REMAND to the district court for
resentencing. If, on remand, the district court determines that Stubblefield
is accountable for the conduct of others under Section 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), it
should provide the required factual findings supporting its decision. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B); § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A), (B) & cmt. n.3; Zapata-
Lara, 615 F.3d at 391.
3