United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-20482 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Caleb Jordan McCreless, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:22-CR-372-1 

______________________________ 

Before Barksdale, Haynes, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Caleb Jordan McCreless contests his within-Guidelines 110-months’ 

sentence, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting 

a conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 2 (aiding and abetting), 1343 (wire fraud), 1349 (conspiracy). In doing so, 

he contends there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s application 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

August 26, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-20482 Document: 56-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2024
No. 23-20482 

2 

of Sentencing Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(8)(B) (quoted infra). He also asserts — 

and the Government concedes — that the restitution award in the judgment 

contains a clerical error and should be corrected. 

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. 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). 

Defendant is subject to a four-level enhancement under Guideline § 

2B1.1 if: his offense involved conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 670 

(prohibiting theft and illicit trafficking of pre-retail products); and he worked 

for an organization in the “supply chain” for a “pre-retail medical product”. 

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(8)(B); see id. cmt. n.1; 18 U.S.C. § 670(e)(1)–(2), (6) 

(defining quoted terms). McCreless contends the record fails to support this 

enhancement in two ways. 

He first asserts that, to prove the gloves his company advertised were 

“pre-retail” medical products, the Government had to show gloves of that 

type were unavailable to consumers. Because McCreless did not preserve 

this issue 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, he must show a forfeited plain error (clear-orobvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his 

substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he 

Case: 23-20482 Document: 56-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2024
No. 23-20482 

3 

makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain 

error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, 

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. McCreless, 

however, offers no authority to support this new assertion. Accordingly, he 

fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious error. 

In the alternative, he asserts that, even if the gloves were pre-retail 

medical products, there is insufficient evidence that he worked for an 

organization in the supply chain for them. The record shows McCreless, 

acting on behalf of McCreless Enterprises, agreed to supply bulk quantities 

of gloves to multiple parties. The court did not clearly err in finding 

McCreless’ company was active as a “jobber” or “broker” in the supply 

chain for the gloves. 18 U.S.C. § 670(e)(6). 

The parties agree the restitution award in the written judgment, which 

was $50,000 higher than the amount ordered at sentencing, is a clerical error. 

Our review confirms the error; therefore, a limited remand to correct the 

error is appropriate under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See United 

States v. Fults, 71 F.4th 328, 329 (5th Cir. 2023) (allowing limited remand for 

correction where judgment contained error in restitution order); see Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 36. 

AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED to correct the clerical error in 

the judgment. 

Case: 23-20482 Document: 56-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/26/2024