UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-4002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. BRADLEY SCOTT WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-4086

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. LARRY LEVI BENNETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-4123

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES ROBERT JOHNSON, a/k/a Jamie,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-4225

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. SHAWN WAYNE FARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cr-00025-JPJ-PMS-27; 1:18-cr- 00025-JPJ-PMS-14; 1:18-cr-00025-JPJ-PMS-7; 1:18-cr-00025-JPJ-PMS-1)

Argued: September 24, 2021 Decided: November 23, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Quattlebaum wrote the opinion in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Agee joined.

ARGUED: Nicholas David Smith, DAVID B. SMITH, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants. Samuel Cagle Juhan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Neil A. Horn, NEIL HORN, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant Williams. David B. Smith, DAVID B. SMITH, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant Johnson. Correy A. Diviney, STRICKLAND,

2 DIVINEY, SEGURA & BYRD, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant Bennett. Wynn A. Harding, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant Farris. Thomas T. Cullen, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

3 QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:

Bradley Scott Williams, Larry Levi Bennett, James Robert Johnson and Shawn Wayne Farris each pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841. 1 While their pleas did not specify that the methamphetamine was of Ice-level purity, the district court at sentencing found that the conspiracy involved Ice and that each was responsible for its distribution. Based on those findings, the district court sentenced appellants using the drug-quantity table in Section 2D1.1(c) of the Guidelines (“Ice Guidelines”).

Williams, Bennett, Johnson and Farris challenge their sentences, arguing first that the court should have categorically rejected the Ice Guidelines on policy grounds due to the 10-to-1 sentencing disparity between Ice methamphetamine and lower-purity methamphetamine. See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2016, 2018). Williams, Johnson and Bennett further argue that the district court failed to individually assess the drug purity of the methamphetamine attributed to each of them. More specifically, they assert it was not reasonably foreseeable to them that the conspiracy involved Ice, which the Guidelines define as methamphetamine that is at least 80% pure. Separately, Johnson argues that the district court failed to consider his argument that his

1 Williams, Johnson and Farris pled guilty to the conspiracy in Count 1 of the indictment. Bennett pled guilty to the conspiracy in Count 1 and a substantive distribution offense in Count 6 of the indictment. 4 Presentence Report substantially overrepresented his criminal history. Having considered these arguments, we affirm the district court’s decision.

I.

On October 24, 2018