United States v. Slider

Case: 20-10194 Document: 00515708970 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 15, 2021
No. 20-10194
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jennifer Lynn Slider,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-302-11
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jennifer Lynn Slider appeals her sentence of 188 months of
imprisonment following her guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable
amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. She contends
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10194 Document: 00515708970 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2021
No. 20-10194
that the district court erred at sentencing by (1) declining a mitigating role
adjustment under § 3B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines, (2) overruling her
objection to the § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement, and (3) requiring her to prove
that she was entitled to an adjustment under § 3B1.2.
We review the district court’s “interpretation and application of the
Guidelines de novo, and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v.
Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013). “A factual finding is not clearly
erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Id. We will
reverse for clear error “only if a review of the record results in a definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (citation omitted).
Section 3B1.2 “provides a range of adjustments for a defendant who
plays a part in committing the offense that makes [her] substantially less
culpable than the average participant in the criminal activity.” § 3B1.2 cmt.
n.3(A). Whether a defendant was a minor or minimal participant under
§ 3B1.2 is a factual finding that we review for clear error. United States v.
Castro, 843 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir. 2016). The defendant has the burden of
demonstrating her entitlement to a mitigating role adjustment based on the
totality of the circumstances. Id.; § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C).
Slider has not shown that she is entitled to a mitigating role
adjustment. See § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C)(i)–(v) (listing factors to consider). The
record reflects that Slider understood the scope and structure of the drug
conspiracy. She distributed methamphetamine and gamma hydroxybutyric
acid (GHB) on behalf of Rodney Gardner, and she continued to distribute
controlled substances and collect money from customers even after Gardner
was arrested. Further, she was Joshua Hite’s GHB distribution partner and
methamphetamine supplier, and she had methamphetamine and GHB
customers of her own. The record also shows that Slider participated in
planning the criminal activity and exercised decision-making authority by
2
Case: 20-10194 Document: 00515708970 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/15/2021
No. 20-10194
directing an unidentified coconspirator to deliver multiple ounce quantities
of GHB to a codefendant, brokering GHB sales for Hite, maintaining her own
methamphetamine and GHB customers, and organizing the removal of
methamphetamine, heroin, and firearms from the home she shared with
Gardner after he was arrested. She was also involved in the attempted cover-
up of the conspiracy by removing drugs from the home, remotely erasing data
from Gardner’s iPhone, instructing a co-conspirator to lie to investigators,
creating sham documents, and falsely testifying at Gardner’s detention
hearing to assist his being released on bond. The district court’s denial of the
mitigating role adjustment was not clearly erroneous.
Under § 2D1.1(b)(12) of the Guidelines, a defendant’s base offense
level can be increased by two levels if she “knowingly maintains a premises
(i.e., a building, room, or enclosure) for the purpose of manufacturing or
distributing a controlled substance, including storage of a controlled
substance for the purpose of distribution.” § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17. “A district
court’s application of § 2D1.1(b)(12) is a factual finding reviewed for clear
error.” See United States v. Haines, 803 F.3d 713, 744 (5th Cir. 2015).
Relevant factors for determining whether a defendant “maintained” a
premises include (1) whether the defendant held a possessory interest in the
premises and (2) “the extent to which the defendant controlled access to, or
activities at, the premises.” § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17.
Slider does not argue that the home she shared with Gardner was not
maintained for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled
substance. Instead, she argues that she did not have sufficient dominion and
control over the home to “maintain” it for this purpose. We have held that
unrestricted access to a premises indicates a “level of access, dominion, and
control” that “suffices to support a maintenance finding under the
deferential clear error standard.” United States v. Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d
260, 264 (5th Cir. 2017) (alteration and citation omitted). Here, the record
3
Case: 20-10194 Document: 00515708970 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/15/2021
No. 20-10194
establishes that Slider had unrestricted access to the home. She was
Gardner’s distribution partner and lived in the home with him for
approximately three years. Although Slider disputes her designation in the
presentence report as Gardner’s distribution partner, she does not meet her
burden of presenting rebuttal evidence to show that this designation is
“inaccurate or materially untrue.” United States v. Cervantes, 706 F.3d 603,
620–21 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). There is nothing in the record to
suggest that Slider was limited in her use of the home. Further, upon
Gardner’s arrest, Slider had sufficient authority over and access to the home
to have drugs and firearms removed. On these facts, the district court’s
application of the § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement was not clearly erroneous.
Finally, as Slider concedes, we have held that a defendant has the
burden of showing that she is entitled to a mitigating role adjustment under
§ 3B1.2. United States v. Angeles-Mendoza, 407 F.3d 742, 753 (5th Cir. 2005).
Under our rule of orderliness, that holding remains binding precedent. See
United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2014). As Slider
acknowledges, her argument is therefore foreclosed.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
4