The opinion
Case: 22-10352 Document: 00516788887 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10352
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 15, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Alfred John McDonald,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-242-1
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Alfred John McDonald pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute a controlled substance. The presentence report (PSR)
assigned a base offense level of 30 based on 1,139.9 kilograms of marijuana.
Among other adjustments, the PSR added two levels under U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing a dangerous weapon. McDonald was assigned
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10352 Document: 00516788887 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
No. 22-10352
14 criminal history points resulting in a criminal history category VI. Twelve
of those points were from four aggravated robberies committed in 1995. This
combination resulted in a recommended guidelines range of 360 to 480
months in prison. McDonald filed objections to the drug quantity finding,
the dangerous-weapon enhancement, and his criminal history score. The
district court overruled all the objections. The district court granted
McDonald a downward variance and sentenced him to 150 months in prison
and four years of supervised release.
McDonald challenges district court’s factual finding on drug quantity
based on drug ledgers and other documents. We review the district court’s
drug-quantity finding for clear error when, as here, a defendant objects to the
finding in the district court and will affirm the quantity finding if it is plausible
in the light of the entire record. United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240,
246 (5th Cir. 2005). The evidence supports the plausibility of the district
court’s interpretation of the ledgers and documents, and McDonald has not
shown otherwise. See United States v. Kearby, 943 F.3d 969, 974 (5th Cir.
2019); United States v. Fields, 932 F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir. 2019).
Next, McDonald argues that the district court erred by assigning 12 of
the 14 criminal history points because the 1995 offenses were too far in the
past to qualify for criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(1).
McDonald challenges the finding that the relevant conduct for the current
offense began in 2017. Relevant conduct is a factual question subject to clear
error review. United States v. Ekanem, 555 F.3d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 2009).
Contrary to McDonald’s assertion, the relevant conduct finding was not
based on unsupported statements in the PSR and was plausible in the light of
the record as a whole. See Kearby, 943 F.3d at 974 n.3; Betancourt, 422 F.3d
at 246.
2
Case: 22-10352 Document: 00516788887 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
No. 22-10352
Finally, McDonald argues that the district court erred in applying a
two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon under
§ 2D1.1(b)(1). The district court’s application of § 2D1.1(b)(1) is a factual
finding reviewed for clear error. United States v. King, 773 F.3d 48, 53 (5th
Cir. 2014). The enhancement “reflects the increased danger of violence
when drug traffickers possess weapons,” and it should be applied “if the
weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was
connected with the offense.” See § 2D1.1, comment. (n.11(A)). Contrary to
McDonald’s argument, the district court in this case stated without
ambiguity that it was applying the enhancement because the evidence
established that the firearm was in the same location as the drugs and drug
paraphernalia and could be used to protect the drug trafficking. See King, 773
F.3d at 53. Accordingly, it is not clearly improbable that the weapon was
connected to the offense. See id. The district court’s application of
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) was not clearly erroneous.
AFFIRMED.
3