Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10402/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10402-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lester Polty
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10402

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LESTER POLTY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-293-3

Before STEWART, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lester Polty appeals the 240-month sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute a 

controlled substance. He asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support 

the two-level, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) enhancement he received for being a leader,

organizer, manager, or supervisor of criminal activity.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 23, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10402 Document: 00515356177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2020
No. 19-10402

2

The district court’s determination that Polty was a leader or organizer 

under § 3B1.1(c) is a factual finding that we review for clear error. United 

States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 622 (5th Cir. 2013). “There is no clear error if 

the district court's finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United 

States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 550 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous only if, after 

reviewing all the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction 

that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). We may affirm the judgment of the district court on any 

grounds supported by the record. See United States v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 

687 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Section 3B1.1(c) provides for a two-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant 

was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity other 

than described in [§ 3B1.1](a) or (b).” § 3B1.1(c). This increase is applicable 

“even where a defendant did not exercise control over another participant, if 

he exercised management responsibility over the property, assets, or activities 

of a criminal organization.” United States v. Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d 278, 282-

83 (5th Cir. 2015).1 A district court may adopt the facts in a presentence report 

(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 in the PSR is 

unreliable.” United States v. Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353, 357 (5th Cir. 2007) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

1 “We note that members of the court have urged en banc review of [this interpretation] 

because it ‘conflate[s] an “adjustment” and an “upward departure” for purposes of Application 

Note 2 to [§3B1.1].’” United States v. Alvarez, 761 F. App’x 363, 364 n.1 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing 

Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d at 284–85 (Prado and Elrod, JJ., concurring)).

Case: 19-10402 Document: 00515356177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2020
No. 19-10402

3

The PSR provided that a participant in the criminal activity acted under 

Polty’s direction. It also established that Polty negotiated drug purchases, 

arranged and sold drugs directly to other distributors, found a new supplier in 

late 2017, sold drugs in large quantities, and had digital scales and wrapping 

with heroin residue in his residence. Even if the information in the PSR was

not sufficient to establish that Polty exercised control over another 

participant’s actions, it showed that Polty exercised “management 

responsibility over the property, assets, or activities of [the] criminal 

organization.” Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d at 282-83; United States v. Delgado, 

672 F.3d 320, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Based on the information in 

the PSR, the application of the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement was plausible in light 

of the record as a whole. See § 3B1.1, comment. (n.4); Serfass, 684 F.3d at 550; 

see also United States v. Dickerson, 909 F.3d 118, 127-28 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. 

denied, 139 S. Ct. 2685 (2019).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-10402 Document: 00515356177 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2020