United States v. Foulks
Decision Date | 11 March 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 13–10399.,13–10399. |
Citation | 747 F.3d 914 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff Appellee v. Anthony Dale FOULKS, Defendant Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff Appellee.
Leigh Warren Davis, Bedford, TX, for Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Dale Foulks pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 185 months in prison, and he now appeals.
In his sole point of error, Foulks argues that the district court erred by imposing a two-level enhancement pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(5) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which applies if, inter alia, the offense involved the importation of ... methamphetamine. We review the application of the Guidelines de novo and factual findings for clear error. United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 550 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 623, 184 L.Ed.2d 404 (2012).
In United States v. Rodriguez, 666 F.3d 944, 946 (5th Cir.2012), we explained that [t]he scope of actions that ‘involve’ the importation of drugs is larger than the scope of those that constitute the actual importation. We concluded that the defendant's proximity, familiarity, and repeated business with the importers justifie[d]the enhancement. Id. at 946–47. Based on Rodriguez, Foulks argues that the enhancement applies only if a defendant has proximity, familiarity, and repeated business with the importers. However, Rodriguez did not hold that these factors were required.
More importantly, in Serfass we held that the enhancement applied to a defendant who possessed and distributed imported methamphetamine, even absent any showing that he knew it was imported. See684 F.3d at 549–50, 553 (). Furthermore, we applied the enhancement even though the person from whom the defendant purchased the methamphetamine had not personally imported it. See id. at 553–54. We now make explicit what was at least implied in Serfass, and what has been recognized in at least two of our subsequent unpublished opinions and by the Ninth Circuit: distribution (or possession with intent to distribute) of imported methamphetamine, even without more, may subject a defendant to the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement. See United States v. Rodden, 481 Fed.Appx. 985, 985 (5th Cir.2012) (); United States v. Castillo, 536...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lincks v. United States
... ... See Kearby , ... 943 F.3d at 976 (“distribution (or possession with ... intent to distribute) of imported [meth], even without more, ... may subject a defendant to the [importation enhancement ... under] § 2D1.1(b)(5) [ ].”) (quoting United ... States v. Foulks , 747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2014) (per ... curiam)). Likewise, “it's irrelevant whether [the ... defendant] knew the drugs had come from Mexico; and, by the ... same logic, the importation needn't have happened during ... the ‘window' of [the defendant's] involvement ... ...
-
Carbajal v. United States
...he is not personally involved in the importation or does not know that the methamphetamine was imported." (citing United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2014))). When faced with facts contained in the PSR that are supported by an adequate evidentiary basis with sufficient indi......
-
United States v. Kearby
...of imported [meth], even without more, may subject a defendant to the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement." United States v. Foulks , 747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). That is, the enhancement applies even if the distributor doesn’t know of the drugs’ foreign origins.9 So, it’s irreleva......
-
Frie v. United States
...that movant knew or should have foreseen that the methamphetamine was imported. Frie, 698 F. App'x at 209 (citing United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914, 914-15 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir. 2012)). In his memorandum, movant presents an additional arg......