Background
Terrence Taylor, Sr. entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The district court for the Western District of Louisiana sentenced him to 210 months imprisonment based on a finding that he was responsible for at least 500 grams of methamphetamine in “ice” form. Taylor obtained the methamphetamine from co-defendant Demartin Hall on multiple occasions in January 2024.
At sentencing, the district court inferred that untested methamphetamine obtained by Taylor on January 10 or January 17, 2024, had similar purity levels to tested methamphetamine he obtained from Hall on January 30, 2024. This inference supported the calculation that Taylor was responsible for drug quantities triggering a 500-gram threshold. Taylor appealed, challenging the drug quantity calculation, the reasonableness of his sentence, and raising a new Eighth Amendment argument.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed Taylor’s 210-month sentence on all counts. Reviewing the drug quantity calculation for clear error, the court found the presentence report’s factual findings regarding drug quantities and purity levels bore sufficient indicia of reliability. Because Taylor presented no rebuttal evidence, the district court properly adopted those facts. The inference that untested methamphetamine sourced from the same supplier had similar purity to tested methamphetamine was not clear error under controlling precedent.
The court rejected Taylor’s substantive reasonableness challenge, finding he had waived that right in his plea agreement. By failing to address the appeal waiver’s validity, Taylor forfeited any challenge to the waiver itself. The court dismissed the waived challenge, enforcing the agreement’s express terms.
Finally, the court rejected Taylor’s newly-raised Eighth Amendment argument that the 210-month sentence was grossly disproportionate. The court found his conclusory argument failed to demonstrate error, much less the clear or obvious error required under plain-error review applicable to waived issues.
Key Takeaways
- District courts may infer similar drug purity for untested methamphetamine when it comes from the same source as tested methamphetamine, provided presentence report findings are reliable and the defendant offers no rebuttal evidence.
- Plea agreement appeal waivers are enforceable, and defendants who fail to challenge waiver validity forfeit appellate review of waived claims.
- Conclusory Eighth Amendment proportionality arguments that lack factual development fail under plain-error review.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s deference to district court drug quantity findings supported by presentence investigations, even when some evidence remains untested. The ruling illustrates the significant consequences of plea agreement appeal waivers—by agreeing to waive substantive reasonableness challenges, defendants eliminate a potentially important layer of appellate review of their sentences.
For practitioners, the opinion demonstrates that raising new arguments for the first time on appeal (here, the Eighth Amendment claim) will face heightened plain-error review and must be substantive, not conclusory. The decision reflects the appellate court’s reluctance to revisit sentencing decisions absent clear error or forfeited waiver issues, even in cases involving substantial prison terms.