United States v. Ira D. Alston

USCA11 Case: 22-13082 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13082
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
IRA D. ALSTON,
a.k.a. Boss Bundles,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cr-00045-MCR-1
USCA11 Case: 22-13082 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13082
____________________
Before WILSON, NEWSON, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ira Alston appeals his 120-month sentence for conspiracy to
distribute controlled substances and for conspiracy to use a com-
munication device to facilitate a felony drug trafficking crime. He
argues that the district court erred in calculating his advisory guide-
line range. Specifically, he contends that the district court should
not have applied a four-level leadership role enhancement because
he was merely a middleman or seller.
I.
The sentencing guidelines prescribe a four-level enhance-
ment for a defendant who was an organizer or leader of a criminal
activity that involved five or more participants. U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.1(a).
We review a district court’s legal interpretation of the sen-
tencing guidelines and its application of the guidelines to the facts
de novo. United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 892 (11th Cir. 2014).
We review a district court’s findings of fact for a sentencing en-
hancement under a clear error standard. United States v. Ghertler,
605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010).
In criminal cases, any errors that do “not affect substantial
rights must be disregarded.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). If a district
court states that its sentence would be the same with a different
guideline calculation, we assume there was an error, calculate the
USCA11 Case: 22-13082 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 3 of 5
22-13082 Opinion of the Court 3
guideline range without the error, and analyze whether the sen-
tence would be substantively reasonable under that guideline
range. See United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1348–50 (11th Cir.
2006). If the sentence would be reasonable, any error in the guide-
line calculation was harmless, and we will not address the disputed
calculation. Id. at 1350.
We consider the “substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard,” taking into ac-
count the totality of the circumstances. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
II.
On appeal, Alston argues that the district court erred by im-
posing a four-level leadership role enhancement because he was
merely a middleman or seller. We decline to review Alston’s chal-
lenge to the district court’s leadership role enhancement because,
if there was any error, it was harmless.
At Alston’s sentencing hearing, the district judge stated that
she would impose the same sentence even if she did not apply the
enhancement: “I would impose the same sentence regardless of the
4-level [leadership role] increase. I could not, as I said, in good con-
science go below the 120 months in this case for the reasons
stated.”
Because the district court would have imposed the same sen-
tence even without the enhancement, under our case law, we will
assume there was an error, calculate the guideline range without
the error, and then analyze whether the sentence would be
USCA11 Case: 22-13082 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13082
substantively reasonable under that guideline range. Keene, 470
F.3d at 1348–50.
Here, Alston received a base level offense of 38 based on the
drug weight. The district court arrived at a guideline range of 262
to 327 months. However, due to Alston’s lack of criminal history,
the lack of guns or violence in the instant case, and his acceptance
of responsibility and substantial assistance to the government, the
court found that a downward variance from the guideline range
was justified. Thus, the court imposed a 120 month-sentence.
Without the leadership role enhancement, Alston argues—
and the government does not dispute—he would have been eligi-
ble for a two-level reduction under the “safety-valve provision” of
the sentencing guidelines. 1 Accordingly, without the four-level
leadership role enhancement, and with the two-level reduction, Al-
ston’s base offense level would have been 32 with a guideline range
of 135 to 168 months. We find that Alston’s 120-month sentence is
substantively reasonable even under this assumed, lower guideline
range.
In support of its sentencing determination, the district court
emphasized the “staggering” drug weight in this case, the danger-
ous nature of the drugs (heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamine),
and the impact these drugs have on the community. The district
court noted the need to punish Alston for the offense, deter others
1 The safety-valve provision provides that, if the defendant meets certain cri-
teria, his base level offense is decreased by two levels. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(18).
USCA11 Case: 22-13082 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023 Page: 5 of 5
22-13082 Opinion of the Court 5
from similar criminal conduct, recognize the sentences that have
been imposed in similar cases, promote respect for the law, and
protect the community. Considering the totality of the circum-
stances, the 120-month sentence imposed by the district court was
substantively reasonable. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
We conclude that if there was any misapplication of the
leadership role enhancement, the error was harmless because the
district court would have imposed the same sentence even without
the enhancement, and the sentence was reasonable. Keene, 470
F.3d at 1350. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.