United States v. Maxwell ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10788 Document: 00515794931 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 24, 2021
No. 20-10788
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Karen Maxwell,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-363-2
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Karen Maxwell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable
amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10788 Document: 00515794931 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2021
No. 20-10788
and (b)(1)(B). She was sentenced to 262 months of imprisonment and four
years of supervised release.
On appeal, Maxwell argues that the district court erred by imposing a
substantively unreasonable sentence due to her advanced age and ill health.
Additionally, she argues that there was no evidence that she was, as the
district court found, a member of one of the largest methamphetamine rings
ever in her area. Maxwell has not shown that the district court failed to take
into account a factor that should receive significant weight, gave significant
weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment
in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173,
186 (5th Cir. 2009). Therefore, she has not rebutted the applicable
presumption that her sentence was reasonable or shown that the district
court abused its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable
sentence. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020);
Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2