United States v. Harris ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30135 Document: 00516695180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-30135
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ March 30, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Demarquiez D. Harris,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:19-CR-187-3
______________________________
Before King, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Demarquiez D. Harris pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with the
intent to distribute methamphetamine and distributing methamphetamine
and cocaine base. The district court sentenced Harris to 262 months’
imprisonment. Harris appeals his sentence, asserting mainly that he should
not have been sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a)
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30135 Document: 00516695180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2023
No. 22-30135
because one of his predicate convictions—a 2016 Louisiana conviction for
possession with the intent to distribute marijuana when he was 17—would
not be a qualifying offense under current law given the decriminalization of
offenses involving trivial amounts of marijuana and the state’s subsequent
raising of the threshold age to be charged as an adult to 18.
Because Harris does not allege that his prior conviction was invalid
due to the denial of counsel, the district court properly refused to consider
his impermissible collateral challenge to his prior conviction. See Custis
v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 495–97 (1994); United States v. Longstreet,
603 F.3d 273, 276–77 (5th Cir. 2010). To the extent that Harris asks us to
create a new exception to the general rule barring collateral challenges to
prior convictions at sentencing, we decline to do so. See United States
v. Montgomery, 974 F.3d 587, 590 n.4 (5th Cir. 2020). Harris’s argument that
his prior conviction cannot support the career offender enhancement because
Louisiana possession with the intent to distribute is broader than the generic
definition of the offense will not be considered as it is raised for the first time
in his reply brief. See United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 360 (5th Cir.
2010).
Harris next argues that the district court erred in assessing a two-level
increase under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing a weapon. As noted
above, Harris’s offense level was based on the application of the § 4B1.1(a)
career offender enhancement. The district court’s assessment of the two-
level § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement thus had no effect on the calculation of his
offense level or Guidelines range. Harris’s challenge to the weapons
enhancement is therefore moot. See United States v. Mankins, 135 F.3d 946,
950 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.
2