United States v. Walker ( 2021 )

Case: 19-10383 Document: 00515761144 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 1, 2021
No. 19-10383
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Quinton Walker,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:14-CR-210-9
Before Higginbotham, Costa, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Quinton Walker pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The plea agreement omitted any
discussion of forfeiture. Subsequently, the Government refused to move for
a third-level reduction in Walker’s offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b)
for acceptance of responsibility unless Walker acquiesced to forfeiture.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-10383 Document: 00515761144 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2021
No. 19-10383
Walker then waived his interest in forfeiture, and the Government moved for
the reduction, which the district court granted. The district court sentenced
Walker to 87 months in prison and three years of supervised release, and the
court ordered him to forfeit $13,429.
In his sole issue on appeal, Walker asserts that the district court erred
by allowing the Government to withhold a third-level reduction under
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) until he agreed to waive forfeiture. 1 Because Walker did
not raise this argument before the district court, our review is for plain error. 2
To show plain error, Walker must show that an error occurred, the error was
clear or obvious rather than subject to reasonable dispute, and the error
affected his substantial rights. 3 If he makes such a showing, this Court has the
discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 4
Section 3E1.1(a) decreases the offense level by two levels if a
“defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his
offense.” 5 Section 3E1.1(b) allows for a further reduction of one level if the
offense level prior to an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction is 16 or more
and if the Government moves for such a reduction, representing that the
defendant “has assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of his
own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea
1
Walker’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver. But the Government does
not invoke the appeal waiver here, so we need not consider whether the waiver bars our
review of Walker’s forfeiture argument. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th
Cir. 2006).
2
United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281, 287 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
3
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
4
Id. (cleaned up).
5
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).
2
Case: 19-10383 Document: 00515761144 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/01/2021
No. 19-10383
of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and
permitting the government and the court to allocate their resources
efficiently.” 6 The “government should not withhold [a § 3E1.1(b)] motion
based on interests not identified in § 3E1.1, such as whether the defendant
agrees to waive his or her right to appeal.” 7
As Walker concedes, this Court has not squarely addressed the issue
of whether the Government can condition a § 3E1.1(b) motion on the
defendant agreeing to a forfeiture of property. We therefore cannot conclude
the district court plainly erred. 8 The judgment of the district court is
affirmed.
6
Id. § 3E1.1.(b).
7
Id. § 3E1.1, cmt. 6.
8
See United States v. Urbina-Fuentes, 900 F.3d 687, 696 (5th Cir. 2018) (“[I]f a
defendant’s theory requires the extension of precedent, any potential error could not have
been plain.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); United States v. Evans, 587
F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 2009) (“We ordinarily do not find plain error when we have not
previously addressed an issue.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
3