Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10217 Su m m ar yC al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee,
ve r s us J O S H U AL O H M A N N , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas N o . 4 :08 -C R -1 4 7 -4

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: *
Josh u a L oh m an n pl ead ed gu i l t y t o c o n sp i ri n g t o di st ribu t e 50 gram s or mo r e o f amix t u r e a n ds u b s t a n c e c o n t a i n i n ga d e t e c t a b l e a mo u n to f me t h a mUnited States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 11, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10217 Document: 00511025621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2010N o. 09- 10217

2 ph et am i n e. H e app eal s h i s sentence, argu i n g t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed byden y in gcr e d it fo ra c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ilityu n d e rU .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1
. A l t hough f

oll ow i ng Un i t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U
. S. 220 ( 20 05 ) , t he s e nt enc i ng gui del i nes ar e a dvi so r y o nl y, and we r e v i ew an ul t i m at e s ent enc e f orr easona bl en ess u n der an abu se- of

- di scr et i on st an da rd, t h e di st ri ctcourtst i l lm u st p r o p e r lyca lc u la te th e g u i d e l i n e -s e n te n c in gra n g e . G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 552 U
. S. 3 8, 5 1 ( 20 07 )
. Gene r all y, w e r e vi e w t he di s t r i c tc ou rt ’ s a ppli c at i o n o f t he gu i del i n es de no vo a n d its fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo rcle a re r r o r . SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. C i sneros- G u t i errez , 5 1 7 F .3 d7 5 1 , 7 6 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Vi l lega s , 4 0 4 F .3 d3 5 5 , 3 5 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e a c c o r d “ e ve n g r e at e rde fe r e nc e ” t han unde rc l ear erro rr e vi e w t o t he
r e fu s a l to g r a n t a re d u c tio n fo ra c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib i l i t y . Uni t e d S t at e s v. Bucha nan , 485 F
. 3d274 , 2 87 ( 5th C i r. 2 007 )
. W e w i l lnot r everse a den i alun der § 3 E
. 1
. 1 u n l ess the de ci sioni s “w i th ou t f ou n d a ti on . ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ju arezD u a rte , 5 1 3 F .3 d2 0 4 , 2 1 1 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 4 5 2 (2 0 0 8 ). L oh m an n contends that t h e di st ri ctcou rterred by den yi n g credi tforacc e pt anc e o f r e s po ns ibil i t y ba s e d o n hi s o bj e c t i o n t o the dr ug qua nt i t y de t e r m i nat i o n s e tf

o r t h i n t he pr e s e nt e nc e r e po r t ( “ PSR ” )
. I n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t , Lo hm ann o bj e c t e d t o b e i n g h e l d a c c o u n t a b l e f o r 2 3 o u n c e s o f m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e o n t he st r engt h of

s t at em ent s m ade b y c o- def endantC or y M i t c hel l , w ho i ndi c at ed t hat he had ob t ai ned m et ham phet am i ne f r om Lohm ann’ s m ot herand t hathe had t h en di st ribu t ed that m et h am ph et am i n e t o L oh m an n . T h e P S R al so r eported t h at Loh m an n ha d m ad e a st atem en t den yi n g t h at h i s m ot h er had been i n volved in m e th a m p h e ta m in e d is tr ib u tio n . A s Loh m an n notes, t h ere w as t est i m on y at sentenci n g f rom a l aw enfor cem en tof f i cer t o t h e ef

fect t h at i tw as not f easibl e f

or drug tr an sact i on s bet w een M i t chel lan d L oh m an n ’ s m ot h er to h ave occurred. T h e d i st ri ctcou rt , how ever, i n ove r r ul i ng Lohm ann’ s obj ec t i on todrug qu ant i t y, i m pl i c i t l y de t er m i ned t hat M i t c he l l ’ s a c c o untw as ac c ur at e . The c o ur t ’ s v i e w o f t he e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng dr ug Case: 09-10217 Document: 00511025621 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2010N o. 09- 10217

3 q u a n tity i s p l a u sibl e in li gh t of th e record , w h i ch i n cl u d es M i tch ell ’ s statem en ts a s re p o r te dinth e P S R a n do th e re v id e n c e th a t L o h m a n n ’ s m o th e r tr a ffic k e din
m eth a m p h eta m i n e. S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . Bur ns , 526 F
. 3d852 , 859 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ); Un itedS ta tes v. Ca ld w ell , 448 F
. 3d287 , 291 n. 1 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)
. Th e den ia l o f are d u c tio n fo ra c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ilityis n o t “ w ith o u t fo u n d a t i o n .” S ee Ju a re z-D u a rte , 5 1 3 F .3 da t 2 1 1
. A ccord i n gly, th e j udgm enti s A FF I R M E D
. L oh m a n ’ s m oti on f or su b sti tu te c o u n s e l , wh i c h wa s f i l e da f t e rt h e c o mp l e t i o n o f b r i e f i n g , i s DE NI ED
. Case: 09-10217 Document: 00511025621 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2010