Case ID: f-appx_694/html/0282-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David SHEPPARD, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-11105 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed July 27, 2017
    Amber Michelle Grand, Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Vincent Eugene Wisely, Attorney, Arlington, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges,
   PER CURIAM:

David Sheppard pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced him to 235 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. Sheppard appeals the application of the U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement for an offense that involved the importation of methamphetamine. He argues that there was an inadequate evidentiary basis for the offense level enhancement.

Because Sheppard did not present rebuttal evidence to contradict the information in the presentenee report, the district permissibly relied on it. See United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 687, 691 (5th Cir. 2013). Sheppard has not shown that the district court clearly erred when it applied the § 2D1.1(b)(5) importation enhancement. See United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 648, 564 (5th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.