IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11153

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHARLES RAY HOOPER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-78-12

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Ray Hooper pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the 

intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 130 months of 

imprisonment, to be followed by four years of supervised release. He now 

appeals his conviction and sentence. Hooper argues that his guilty plea was 

unknowing and involuntary because the Government withheld exculpatory 

sentencing evidence regarding the amount of methamphetamine for which he 

 

* 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

June 29, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11153 Document: 00513096976 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2015
No. 14-11153

2

was accountable. He contends that the Government’s withholding of this 

evidence violated its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

Hooper’s guilty plea precludes him from raising a claim that the Government 

failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 

U.S. 83 (1963), and his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United 

States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174, 178-79 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Orman v. Cain, 

228 F.3d 616, 617 (5th Cir. 2000); Matthew v. Johnson, 201 F.3d 353, 361-62 

(5th Cir. 2000). Hooper concedes this point and raises the issue solely to 

preserve it for further possible review.

Hooper also argues that the Government’s failure to provide exculpatory 

sentencing information resulted in a denial of the effective assistance of 

counsel. To establish ineffective assistance, Hooper must show that his 

counsel’s conduct was deficient and that it prejudiced his defense. Strickland 

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Because Hooper does not show that 

counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” he 

does not show that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. See id. at 

688.

Regarding the reasonableness of his sentence, Hooper challenges being 

held responsible for conduct occurring prior to the date alleged in the 

indictment. His argument fails. The district court determined that Hooper’s 

relevant conduct includes acts dating from 2006. “Drug transactions occurring 

before the precise time frame of the conspiracy for which a defendant is 

convicted may be considered” as relevant conduct. United States v. McCaskey, 

9 F.3d 368, 375 (5th Cir. 1993). Additionally, a district court’s assessment of 

relevant conduct affects the calculation of a defendant’s criminal history score, 

and the Guidelines explain that, for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(2), 

 Case: 14-11153 Document: 00513096976 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2015
No. 14-11153

3

“commencement of the instant offense” includes any relevant conduct under 

U.S.S.G. §1B1.3. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.8).

Challenging the amount of drugs for which he was held responsible at 

sentencing, Hooper notes that the district court sustained his objections to the 

drug quantity as set forth in the PSR but contends that counsel made an error 

in calculation and that the appropriate offense level was two levels lower than 

that argued at sentencing and determined by the district court. The error of 

which Hooper complains regarding drug quantity was invited and should be 

reviewed only for manifest injustice. See United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 

346, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2010). Hooper has failed to satisfy this burden. 

Finally, Hooper argues that the district court erred in denying a 

reduction for having a minor role in the offense. He contends that he was not 

involved in the conspiracy after 2008, and therefore, he should have been 

granted a two-level reduction for having less involvement during the time 

frame covered by the indictment. The district court’s denial of a reduction for 

a mitigating role is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States v. 

Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir. 2005). The determination of a 

defendant’s role in the offense is made on the basis of all conduct within the 

scope of relevant conduct. U.S.S.G. Ch. 3, Pt. B, intro. comment. Hooper does 

not dispute that his actions during 2006-2007 would not qualify for a minor 

role reduction. Because the district court found that Hooper’s relevant conduct 

included the conduct in 2006 and 2007, Hooper fails to show that the district 

court clearly erred in denying his request for a minor role adjustment. See

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.5); Villanueva, 408 F.3d at 203.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-11153 Document: 00513096976 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2015