IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-51046

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

VENSHARD DOUGLAS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:17-CR-139-2

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pursuant to his guilty plea, Venshard Douglas was convicted of aiding 

and abetting attempting to possess, with intent to distribute, 500-grams or 

more of cocaine (count one) and aiding and abetting possession of a firearm in 

furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime (count two). After granting Douglas’

request for a downward variance, the district court sentenced him, inter alia,

 

* 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

September 21, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-51046 Document: 00514651542 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2018
No. 17-51046

2

to consecutive terms of 84-months’ imprisonment on count one and 60 on count 

two.

Douglas challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence, 

contending the court: erred in finding him responsible for at least two 

kilograms of cocaine for purposes of calculating his base-offense level under 

Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1(a)(5); and failed to provide adequate reasons for 

its sentencing decision. Because Douglas did not preserve these issues in 

district court, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 

669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Douglas must show a 

forfeited plain (clear or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights.

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we have the 

discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but should do so only if it 

“seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings”. Id.

To the extent Douglas contends the court found he was responsible for 

less than two kilograms of cocaine for purposes of calculating his base-offense 

level under Guideline § 2D1.1(a)(5), his contention is belied by the record. The 

presentence investigation report (PSR) recommended Douglas was responsible 

for at least two kilograms of cocaine and assigned him a base-offense level of 

26 under § 2D1.1(a)(5). At sentencing, as well as in its statement of reasons, 

the district court provided it had adopted the PSR without change. To the 

extent Douglas asserts the court erred in finding him responsible for at least 

two kilograms of cocaine for purposes of calculating his base-offense level 

under § 2D1.1(a)(5), his assertion is unpersuasive. Absent evidence the 

information in the PSR was “‘materially untrue, inaccurate or unreliable’”, the 

court did not commit the requisite clear or obvious error in finding Douglas 

responsible for at least two kilograms of cocaine. United States v. Harris, 702

 Case: 17-51046 Document: 00514651542 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2018
No. 17-51046

3

F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Huerta, 182 F.3d 361, 

364–65 (5th Cir.1999)); see Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Rojas, 812 

F.3d 382, 413 (5th Cir. 2016).

As for the other claimed error, the court did not plainly err regarding the 

adequacy of its sentencing explanation. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United 

States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361, 364–65 (5th Cir. 2009). It 

considered Douglas’ contentions for a downward variance and offered specific 

reasons for its sentencing decision. Even if the court “might have said more”,

it “considered the evidence and argument”, and its statement of reasons for the 

sentence imposed was “legally sufficient”. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 

358–59 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-51046 Document: 00514651542 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/21/2018