# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 11118 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Royal Bruce Richards,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 112

- 2

Before **Barksdale, Southwick**  **,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Royal Bruce Richards pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess , with intent to distribute , a substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circui t 

### FILED January 20, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-11118 Document: 00515712468 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2021No. 19

- 11118

2 He was sentenced to, inter alia , a within

- Sentencing G uidelines term of 87

- months ’ imprisonment.

Richards challenge s the court ’s calculation of the drug quantity attributable to him. Although post

- Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, the district court must avoid significant proced ural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonab leness under an abuse

- of

- discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado

Martinez , 564 F.3d 750, 751

– 53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de

novo ; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g. , United States v. Cisneros

Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). The determination of the drug quantity for sentencing purposes is a factual finding, resulting in review only for clear error. E.g. , United Stat es v. Dinh , 920 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). A nd, a district court may adopt the facts from a presentence investigation report ( PSR )

“ without further inquiry if those facts have an adequate evidentiary basis with sufficient indicia of reliability and the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence.” Id. at 313 (internal quotation marks and citation s omitted) (emphasis in original)

. Moreover, w hen calculating dr ug quantity, the district court can consider the statements of coconspirators even if they “are somewhat imprecise” , as long as they are not “implausible”

. United States v. Kearby , 943 F.3d 969, 974

– 75 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The PSR stated Richards was responsible for 5,561.85 grams of methamphetamine, based on : amounts found in his vehicle and residence ; and his distributing to three coconspirators. T he PSR stated, inter alia , Case: 19-11118 Document: 00515712468 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2021No. 19

- 11118

3 Richards was responsible for 105 ounces of methamphetamine , based on daily sales of one ounce for 105 days to one of the three coconspirators (the resulting amount comprised approximately 54 percent of the drug quantity)

. This finding was based on the coconspirator’s statement that his and Richards’ drug relationship stretched from August or September 2018 until Richards’ arrest that December

. In the same interview, however, the coconspirator stated he purchased methamphetamine from Richards for “approximately six to eight weeks”

. Ric hards contends the drug

- quantity calculation should include one ounce of methamphetamine a day for six to eight weeks, rather than for 105 days.

Richards fail s to show the longer distribution window adopted by the district court was implausible. See Kear by , 943 F.3d at 9 74

– 75 ; see also United States v. Betancourt , 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005)

. An addendum to the PSR provides that the coconspirator’s statement is reliable , because it was consistent with a drug ledger Richards kept during a portion of the time he distributed methamphetamine to the coconspirator. At sentencing, however, Richards did not introduce the drug ledger or present any other rebuttal evidence to supp ort the shorter window

. Accordingly , the district court was entitled to rely on the facts provided in the PSR

. S ee Dinh , 920 F.3d at 313

. In short, Richards has not demonstrated the requisite clear error

. S ee Betancourt , 422 F.3d at 246.

**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 19-11118 Document: 00515712468 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/20/2021