Case ID: f-appx_638/html/0415-01.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. Billy Fred GENTRY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10232
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 15, 2016.
    .James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Steven Todd Jumes, Varghese Summer-sett & Smith, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Billy Fred Gentry, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
    Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Billy Fred Gentry pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute- more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. At sentencing, the district court held him responsible for 10.9 kilograms of methamphetamine and sentenced him to 135 months of imprisonment, which was at the low end of the guideline range. Gentry now argues that the district court’s drug quantity determination is flawed because it was based on the unreliable, self-serving hearsay of cooperating co-conspirators and an unknown source.

When considering a claim of procedural error, we review the district court’s interpretation and application of the Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008). A district court’s calculation of the quantity of drugs involved in an offense is a factual ■finding and is “not clearly erroneous as long as it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In this case, the statements in the witness reports produced by the government are sufficiently reliable to support the district court’s drug quantity calculation, given the similarities among them. See United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 591-92 (5th Cir.2013) (affirming reliance on facts from in PSR that were based on two co-conspirators’ detailed and consistent statements). The fact that the statements were made by Gentry’s co-conspirators and were not corroborated by physical evidence does not render the statements inherently unreliable, and Gentry has failed to proffer competent rebuttal evidence to demonstrate that they are materially untrue. See United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787, 796 (5th Cir.2015).

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.