Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-10689/USCOURTS-ca5-18-10689-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie Bernard Ellis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10689

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RONNIE BERNARD ELLIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-176-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronnie Bernard Ellis appeals his 320-month sentence following his 

guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a 

controlled substance. Ellis contends that the district court erred by finding 

that the offense involved the importation of methamphetamine for the 

purposes of applying a two-level enhancement to his offense level pursuant to 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) because there was insufficient evidence connecting him 

* 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 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-10689 Document: 00515333391 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/05/2020
No. 18-10689

2

to methamphetamine imported from Mexico. We review the district court’s 

factual determination that Ellis’s offense involved the importation of 

methamphetamine for clear error. See United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 

550, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2012).

The two-level § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement applies if “the offense involved 

the importation of amphetamine or methamphetamine” and the defendant 

does not receive a mitigating role adjustment. Considering the record as a 

whole, the district court plausibly inferred that the methamphetamine 

involved in the offense had been imported from Mexico. See id. at 550, 553-54. 

Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by applying the § 2D1.1(b)(5) 

enhancement. See United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2014). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-10689 Document: 00515333391 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/05/2020