Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-06-30126/USCOURTS-ca5-06-30126-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bryan Keith McCall
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 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 Fifth Circuit

Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 13, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 06-30126

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRYAN KEITH MCCALL, also known as Sealed Defendant #2,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:03-CR-15-2

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bryan Keith McCall pled guilty to attempted bribery of a public official. 18 U.S.C.

§§ 201(b)(1)(2) and 2. The indictment to which he pled guilty stated that McCall aided and abetted

 Case: 06-30126 Document: 0051578819 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2007
-2-

Rodney C. Vincent, who “corruptly did offer . . . $1,000 to a public official with the intent to induce

the public official . . . to disclose confidential and non-public reports concerning a federal grand jury

investigation into alleged illegal drug trafficking activities of defendant Rodney C. Vincent and

others.” At the original sentencing, the district court applied United States Sentencing Guideline

§ 2C1.1(c)(2) for bribery and that section’s cross-reference to U.S.S.G. § 2X3.1(a) for bribery

obstructing a criminal investigation. Under U.S.S.G. § 2X3.1(a), the sentencing offense level should

be “6 levels lower than the offense level for the underlying offense.” In this case, the underlying

offense wasthe cocaine distribution ring, which the district court found accounted for eight kilograms

of cocaine; so the offense level for the underlying offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4), was

32. After subtracting 6, under U.S.S.G. § 2X3.1(a), and subtracting 3 for acceptance of

responsibility, the district court found a total offense level of 23. With McCall’s criminal history

category at IV, the district court determined the sentencing range at 70-87 months in prison and

sentenced McCall to 86 months.

McCall’s original sentence was vacated and remanded to the district court for resentencing

in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). United States v. McCall, 149 Fed. Appx.

247 (5th Cir. 2005). On remand, the district court made the same findings with respect to the

sentencing enhancements for obstruction of a criminal investigation, calculated the same sentencing

range, and applied the reasonableness factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Ultimately, the district court

imposed the same sentence: 86 months in prison.

McCall argues that the district court improperly calculated the sentencing guideline range

because it was based on contested facts))namely, McCall challengesthe quantity of the drugsin the

underlying offense and whether the purpose of the bribery was to obstruct a criminal investigation.

 Case: 06-30126 Document: 0051578819 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2007
1

In part, McCall frames his claims as a Booker challenge, but he is neither challenging the

reasonableness of his sentence nor alleging the district court made findings of fact relating to an

element of the offense. He is only challenging the district court’s findings relating to sentencing

considerations. See United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 262 (5th Cir. 2006)

-3-

We review the district court’s factual determinations for clear error, where those factual

determinations are not an element ofthe offense and are used only for sentencing considerations. See

United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 n. 9 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Post-Booker, we continue to

apply the same standard of review to claims of erroneous fact-finding with respect to the application

of adjustments, i.e., we review for clear error.”).1

The district court did not clearly error by denying McCall’s objections to the sentencing

enhancements. McCall specifically pled guilty to an indictment that indicated the bribery was related

to a grand jury investigation into drug trafficking and his attorney admitted at sentencing that McCall

knew the bribery wasrelated to a drug investigation. Further, McCall’s argument is that his purpose

for getting involved in the bribery scheme was not to obstruct justice but was merely to make money.

Where the defendant’s intent is to make money by obstructing justice, a district court is free to find

obstruction ofjustice for the purposes ofthissentencing enhancement. Further, the quantity of drugs,

eight kilograms of cocaine, was based on statements made by Vincent in his guilty plea, and relate

only to the drugs sold to Vincent’s customer implicated in the documents produced by the CI.

McCall presents no evidence discrediting this amount. As a result, we cannot say that the district

judge clearly erred in making these factual determinations and therefore cannot say that the guideline

range was improperly calculated. McCall was sentenced within the properly calculated guideline

range and he does not challenge the reasonableness of this sentence.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 06-30126 Document: 0051578819 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/13/2007