Background
Thomas Dew participated in a methamphetamine-distribution conspiracy centered in Sabine Parish, Louisiana. After controlled purchases and other investigative work, federal prosecutors charged Dew and six others. Dew pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine. In exchange, the government agreed to dismiss two other counts, forgo certain additional charges, and seek a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
The plea’s factual basis identified 440 grams of methamphetamine seized from Dew, but the government stated at the plea hearing that additional quantities would be addressed at sentencing. Relying on testimony from two co-conspirators and an FBI agent, the district court attributed at least 10.88 kilograms to Dew. With other enhancements and a criminal-history category of V, Dew’s Guidelines range was life imprisonment. The court imposed a life sentence, stating that it would reach the same result under the Guidelines or as a variance based on the statutory sentencing factors.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that the government did not breach the plea agreement. Because Dew raised the issue for the first time on appeal, the court reviewed for plain error. The written agreement neither capped the attributable drug quantity at 440 grams nor barred the government from presenting relevant-conduct evidence at sentencing. The factual basis described seized amounts, not the conspiracy’s total quantity, and the government’s plea-hearing statements did not clearly establish a contrary promise incorporated into the agreement.
The court also held that attributing 10.88 kilograms to Dew was not clearly erroneous. The co-conspirators consistently testified that Dew distributed one to two pounds of methamphetamine per week, an FBI agent said that estimate matched the broader investigation, and Dew offered no rebuttal evidence establishing unreliability. Finally, the life sentence was substantively reasonable. It fell within the properly calculated Guidelines range, and the district court adequately considered Dew’s circumstances, the offense’s seriousness, deterrence, public protection, and sentencing disparities. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A factual basis identifying drugs actually seized does not, without an express agreement, cap the relevant drug quantity considered at sentencing.
- Consistent co-conspirator testimony, supported by an investigating agent and unrebutted by competent evidence, may sustain an estimated drug-quantity finding.
- A within-Guidelines life sentence remains presumptively reasonable when the district court meaningfully applies the statutory sentencing factors and explains disparities among co-defendants.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the distinction between the quantity recited to support a guilty plea and the broader relevant conduct used to calculate a Guidelines range. Defense counsel seeking a sentencing limitation must secure clear language in the plea agreement; courts will not infer a drug-quantity cap from a factual basis listing seized amounts.
It also illustrates the substantial deference appellate courts give district judges on witness reliability, drug-quantity estimates, and substantive reasonableness—particularly when the defendant presents no rebuttal evidence and the sentence falls within the calculated Guidelines range.