Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Thomas Dew participated in a methamphetamine-distribution conspiracy centered in Sabine Parish, Louisiana. After controlled buys and other investigative work, Dew and six others were indicted. Dew agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. In exchange, the government agreed to dismiss two other counts, forgo prosecution of other offenses arising from the investigation, and seek a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
The plea’s factual basis stated that agents had seized 440 grams of methamphetamine from Dew, but the government advised at the plea hearing that additional quantities supported by cooperating witnesses would be addressed at sentencing. The presentence report attributed at least 10.88 kilograms to Dew and calculated an advisory Guidelines range of life imprisonment. After hearing testimony from two co-conspirators and an FBI agent, the district court overruled Dew’s drug-quantity objection and imposed a life sentence, explaining that the same sentence was warranted under the Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Reviewing Dew’s unpreserved breach claim for plain error, the court held that the government did not clearly or obviously breach the plea agreement. Neither the agreement nor its factual basis capped Dew’s relevant conduct at 440 grams. That figure described methamphetamine seized from him, while the agreement reserved sentencing decisions for the district court and anticipated that the Guidelines range would be determined after preparation of the presentence report.
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 explained that this estimate was consistent with the investigation, and Dew offered no rebuttal evidence establishing unreliability. Finally, the court held that the life sentence was substantively reasonable. The sentence fell within the properly calculated Guidelines range, and the district court adequately considered Dew’s role, criminal history, the scale of the conspiracy, his use of a child in drug distribution, deterrence, public protection, and disparities with his co-conspirators.
Key Takeaways
- A factual basis identifying the amount of drugs actually seized does not, without language to that effect, cap the drug quantity that may be considered as relevant conduct at sentencing.
- Consistent co-conspirator testimony, corroborated by an investigating agent and unrebutted by competent evidence, may support an estimated drug quantity.
- A within-Guidelines life sentence remains presumptively reasonable when the district court meaningfully applies the § 3553(a) factors and explains why differences among co-defendants justify a sentencing disparity.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the distinction between the drug amount recited to support a guilty plea and the broader relevant-conduct quantity used to calculate a Guidelines range. Unless a plea agreement expressly restricts the government’s sentencing position, identifying seized drugs in the factual basis ordinarily does not prevent the government from presenting evidence of additional quantities.
It also illustrates the substantial deference appellate courts give to district judges on credibility, drug-quantity estimates, and substantive reasonableness—particularly when the defendant offers no rebuttal evidence and the resulting sentence falls within the advisory Guidelines range.