USA v. Anthony Welch, No. 18-10457 (5th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-10457 Document: 00514888980 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-10457 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 26, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ANTHONY RAY WELCH, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17-CR-198-3 Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Anthony Ray Welch appeals the 235-month prison term imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. Welch challenges the district court’s assessment of the twolevel enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) for the importation of methamphetamine, arguing that the Guideline requires mens rea and that Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 18-10457 Document: 00514888980 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2019 No. 18-10457 there was no evidence he knew any methamphetamine was imported. The Government moved for summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellate brief or, alternatively, an extension of time to file a brief. As Welch concedes, his sole argument on appeal is foreclosed by United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir. 2012), which held that the Section 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement applies “regardless of whether the defendant had knowledge of [the drug] importation.” Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as moot, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.