Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-40805/USCOURTS-ca5-09-40805-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Don Rhoden
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40805

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee

v.

LARRY DON RHODEN,

Defendant – Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CR-665-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Don Rhoden pled guilty to two counts of transporting illegal aliens

within the United States for commercial advantage or private financial gain and

was sentenced to concurrent terms of forty-one months’ imprisonment. On

appeal, Rhoden asserts the district court erred in imposing a nine-level

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 16, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-40805 Document: 00511053511 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2010
No. 09-40805

 U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(C) (“If the offense level involved the smuggling, transporting 1

or harboring of six or more unlawful aliens, increase as follows: . . . (C) 100 or more . . . add

9").

United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). 2

United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878, 884–885 (5th Cir. 2009). 

3

2

enhancement pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines section 2L1.1(b)(2)(C). The 1

court applied the enhancement based on Rhoden’s post-arrest statements

included in the presentence investigation report that he had transported

approximately one hundred aliens two days before and had smuggled

undocumented aliens on eight different occasions, transporting between one

hundred and fifty to one hundred and ninety-five per trip. Rhoden contends the

court erred in relying on the statements in the presentence report and that the

government was required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that

the prior loads occurred and the number of aliens involved in those trips. 

This court reviews the district court’s interpretation and application of the

Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Whether 2

the district court properly determined relevant conduct, including “a finding by

the district court that unadjudicated conduct is part of the same course of

conduct,” is a factual finding reviewable for clear error. “In making its factual 3

findings for sentencing, a district court may adopt the findings of the PSR

without additional inquiry if those facts have an evidentiary basis with sufficient

indicia of reliability and the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence or

otherwise demonstrate that the information is materially unreliable. The

 Case: 09-40805 Document: 00511053511 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2010
No. 09-40805

United States v. Ford, 558 F.3d 371, 377 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and 4

citations omitted).

 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 5

 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). 

6

See United States v. Ocana, 204 F.3d 585, 589–91 (5th Cir. 2000) (“The factors that

7

are appropriate to weigh in making the determination as to whether the offenses are

sufficiently connected or related include the degree of similarity of the offenses, the regularity

3

defendant has the burden of showing that the information relied on by the

district court in the PSR is materially unreliable.”4

The presentence report based the enhancement on Rhoden’s statement

made after his arrest and after he was informed of his rights under Miranda v.

Arizona. Although Rhoden asserts that his post-arrest statements were the 5

result of nerves and exaggeration, he does not deny that he made the statements

and presents no evidence disputing their substance. The district court did not

err in relying on the statements in the presentence report in applying the

enhancement.

Rhoden also asserts that the evidence of the prior alien loads does not

constitute relevant conduct because there was no evidence showing “jointly

undertaken criminal activity,” as there was no evidence that the prior loads were

undertaken in concert with the same individuals who participated in the instant

offense. The district court found that the prior incidents constituted relevant

conduct because they were part of the “same course of conduct.” Rhoden’s prior 6

offenses were sufficiently similar and occurred with sufficient regularity to

establish they were part of the same course of conduct. In addition, Rhoden’s

admission that one prior trip occurred two days prior to the instant offense

reveals a short time interval warranting a finding of relevant conduct.7

 Case: 09-40805 Document: 00511053511 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/16/2010
No. 09-40805

of the offenses, and the time interval between the offenses.” (internal quotations and citations

omitted)).

4

Rhoden has not established that the district court clearly erred in

imposing the nine-level enhancement; the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-40805 Document: 00511053511 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/16/2010