United States Court of Appeals

for 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 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 20, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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

2

He was sentenced to, inter alia, a within-Sentencing Guidelines term of 87-

months’ imprisonment. 

Richards challenges 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 procedural 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 reasonableness 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. DelgadoMartinez, 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. CisnerosGutierrez, 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 States v. 

Dinh, 920 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). And, 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 citations

omitted) (emphasis in original). Moreover, when calculating drug 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. The PSR stated, inter alia,

Case: 19-11118 Document: 00515712468 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2021
No. 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”. Richards contends the drug-quantity calculation should include one 

ounce of methamphetamine a day for six to eight weeks, rather than for 105 

days. 

Richards fails to show the longer distribution window adopted by the 

district court was implausible. See Kearby, 943 F.3d at 974–75; 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 support the shorter window. Accordingly, the district court was 

entitled to rely on the facts provided in the PSR. See Dinh, 920 F.3d at 313. 

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

Betancourt, 422 F.3d at 246.

AFFIRMED.

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