United States v. Weeks ( 2023 )

Case: 23-30092 Document: 00516957192 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 23-30092 November 6, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
James Christopher Weeks,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:21-CR-155-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Defendant-Appellant James Christopher Weeks pleaded guilty,
pursuant to a written plea agreement without an appeal waiver, to conspiracy
to possess 50 grams or more of methamphetamine or 500 grams or more of a
mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine
with the intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30092 Document: 00516957192 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 23-30092
The district court sentenced Weeks within the guidelines range to 360
months of imprisonment and imposed a 10-year term of supervised release.
Weeks now appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by
refusing to reject the methamphetamine-purity distinction in U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1 and refusing to deviate from the Guidelines based on his arguments
that the methamphetamine Guideline is not empirically grounded and that
application of the Guideline would result in unwarranted sentencing
disparities.
Because Weeks preserved his arguments for appeal, we review the
procedural reasonableness of his sentence for harmless error and the
substantive reasonableness of his sentence for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 598 (5th Cir. 2014). District courts have the
discretion to vary from the Guidelines for several reasons, including “solely
upon policy disagreement,” including disagreement with the drug-purity
distinctions, but they are not required to do so. United States v. Malone, 828
F.3d 331, 338-39 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S.
85, 109 (2007)). Nevertheless, a district court’s failure to recognize that it
has such discretion constitutes procedural error. See Robinson, 741 F.3d at
599, 601. Weeks does not allege, however, nor does the record reflect, that
the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory or did not know that it
could vary based on policy disagreements. Finding no procedural error, we
turn to the substantive reasonableness of Weeks’s sentence.
Weeks’s arguments that § 2D1.1 is not empirically grounded and
results in unwarranted sentencing disparities implicate the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence. However, his arguments are insufficient to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded to his within-guidelines
sentence. “Whatever appropriate deviations it may permit or encourage at
the discretion of the district judge, Kimbrough does not force district or
appellate courts into a piece-by-piece analysis of the empirical grounding
2
Case: 23-30092 Document: 00516957192 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 23-30092
behind each part of the sentencing guidelines.” United States v. Duarte, 569
F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Kimbrough does not disturb the
presumption of reasonableness given to Weeks’s within-guidelines sentence,
“even if the relevant Guideline is not empirically based.” United States v.
Lara, 23 F.4th 459, 485 (5th Cir.) (citing United States v. Mondragon-
Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366–67 (5th Cir. 2009)), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2790
(2022). Moreover, the district court considered Weeks’s argument that
there is no empirical basis for the methamphetamine guideline’s purity
distinctions but declined to deviate from the Guidelines on that basis.
Weeks’s argument is therefore insufficient to rebut the presumption that his
within guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Lara, 23 F.4th at
485-86; United States v. Rebulloza, 16 F.4th 480, 485 (5th Cir. 2021).
Weeks’s argument that the application of the Guideline results in
unwarranted sentencing disparities is insufficient to rebut the presumption
of reasonableness afforded to his within-guidelines sentence. Although “the
need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with
similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct” is a factor
that district courts consider, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), the district court in
this case expressly considered that factor, along with all the § 3553(a) factors,
in imposing sentence. Weeks does not argue—and the record does not
reflect—that his sentence fails to account for a factor that should receive
significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper
factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.
See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3