United States v. O'Neill ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50996 Document: 00516957001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50996
FILED
November 6, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Lashonda O’Neill,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:18-CR-68-2
______________________________
Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Lashonda O’Neill was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute cocaine; possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and
aiding and abetting; and money laundering. O’Neill challenges her sentence.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50996 Document: 00516957001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 22-50996
O’Neill contends that the district court clearly erred by imposing a two-level
increase in her offense level for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1
because O’Neill attempted to conceal the assets of her co-conspirator,
Darwin Powell, from the Government. O’Neill had approached an
automobile dealer and had asked that Powell’s vehicles be placed under the
dealer’s business name. Our review of this question is for clear error. See
United States v. Powers, 168 F.3d 741, 752 (5th Cir. 1999).
Although O’Neill couches this issue in terms of sufficiency of
evidence, her true argument goes to materiality. See § 3C1.1, comment. (n.6).
We have recognized that “it is not unusual for a drug trafficker to place
property in the names of others in order to avoid seizure.” United States v.
Milton, 147 F.3d 414, 422 (5th Cir. 1998). O’Neill’s effort to conceal
Powell’s assets was material to her role in the conspiracy, and would tend to
influence or affect an issue under determination, such as her relevant conduct
and the assets of Powell subject to forfeiture and available for payment of a
fine or restitution. See § 3C1.1, comment. (n.6; ); see also United States v.
Miller, 607 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 2010). The district court’s finding that
O’Neill obstructed justice was not clearly erroneous. See Powers, 168 F.3d at
752. We thus need not reach the arguments regarding other evidence
supporting the enhancement.
O’Neill also challenges the enhancement of her offense level pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) because a dangerous weapon was possessed. Our
review of this question is for clear error. See United States v. King, 773 F.3d
48, 53 (5th Cir. 2014). Imposition of the dangerous-weapon enhancement is
appropriate where it is shown that it was reasonably foreseeable to the
defendant that another person involved in the commission of the offense was
in possession of such a weapon. See United States v. Marquez, 685 F.3d 501,
507 (5th Cir. 2012).
2
Case: 22-50996 Document: 00516957001 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/06/2023
No. 22-50996
The record reflects that Powell and O’Neill were in a common-law
relationship, that Powell openly carried a firearm when he made deliveries of
large quantities of cocaine, that O’Neill accompanied him on many occasions
to purchase and deliver large quantities of cocaine, that Powell stored guns in
a car at O’Neill’s parents’ house, and that O’Neill was otherwise extensively
involved in Powell’s operations. Given these facts, the district court did not
clearly err in finding that Powell’s possession of a dangerous weapon was
reasonably foreseeable to O’Neill. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517
F.3d 751, 764-66 (5th Cir. 2008).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
3