IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10224

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRENTON GUS DEUBLER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-81-14

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brenton Gus Deubler appeals his sentence of 168 months of 

imprisonment imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. He 

argues that the district court clearly erred in attributing 1445.85 grams of 

methamphetamine to him and in increasing his offense level by two under 

U.S.S.G. § 2D.1.1(b)(12). We review the district court’s application of the 

* 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

October 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10224 Document: 00512818425 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2014
No. 14-10224

Sentencing Guidelines de novo, and its factual findings for clear error. United 

States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 202-03 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2005).

The district court calculated the amount of methamphetamine 

attributable to Deubler from the facts set forth in the presentence report. 

Specifically, the presentence report indicated that, over the course of nine 

weeks in 2013, Deubler typically obtained between four and six ounces, 

although sometimes more, of methamphetamine on a weekly or bi-weekly basis

from his supplier. The presentence report further stated that, as part of a 

group of suppliers, distributors, and consumers of methamphetamine, Deubler 

generally obtained methamphetamine from an unindicted co-conspirator and, 

in turn, supplied it to other individuals for resale or their own use. The 

individuals who bought methamphetamine from Deubler for resale included 

Deubler’s girlfriend and her ex-boyfriend. Shortly before Deubler’s arrest, he

arranged a meeting to repay an $8000 debt for methamphetamine he had 

previously purchased on consignment for resale. Officers arrested Deubler at 

the meeting and seized $2340 in cash from him. In a later search of the

residence Deubler shared with his girlfriend, investigators found a purse 

containing methamphetamine, a duffle bag containing methamphetamine, a 

bottle containing methamphetamine, two digital scales, and a loaded pistol. In 

the district court, Deubler presented no evidence that the facts related in 

presentence report were untrue, or that he had typically either obtained or 

distributed less methamphetamine, or that he had done so less frequently than 

reported. See United States v. Cervantes, 706 F.3d 603, 620-21 (5th Cir. 2013). 

The district court, therefore, was free to rely on the report and adopt the facts 

stated therein as its findings. See United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 618-

19 (5th Cir. 2013). Those facts support the district court’s determination that 

the preponderance of the evidence showed that Deubler was responsible for 

2

 Case: 14-10224 Document: 00512818425 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2014
No. 14-10224

1445.85 grams. See United States v. Sherrod, 964 F.2d 1501, 1508 (5th Cir. 

1992). We find, in light of the record as a whole, that Deubler’s unsupported 

challenge to the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence, fails to “give rise to 

a definite and firm conviction that the district court made a mistake” when it 

attributed 1445.85 grams of methamphetamine to Deubler. United States v. 

Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 592 (5th Cir 2013).

We find Deubler’s challenge to the two-level offense level increase under 

§ 2D1.1(b)(12) equally unpersuasive. Under § 2D1.1(b)(12), a two-level 

enhancement applies “[i]f the defendant maintained a premises for the purpose 

of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance,” including the storage 

of a controlled substance for the purpose of distribution. As with his challenge 

to the drug quantity, Deubler presented no evidence to show that the facts 

underlying the application of the enhancement were untrue or inaccurate. See 

Cervantes, 706 F.3d 603, 620-21. Those unrebutted facts support the district 

court’s conclusion that Deubler exercised control over and access to the 

residence at issue where he lived for a nominal rent while renovating the 

property for resale. See § 2D1.1, comment. (n.17). They additionally support 

the district court’s determination that Deubler stored the methamphetamine 

in the home and distributed it from there. See 2D1.1(b)(12). We find no clear 

error in the district court’s factual findings or its application of § 2D1.1(b)(12). 

See Alaniz, 726 F.3d at 618; § 2D1.1(b)(12) & comment. (n.17).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-10224 Document: 00512818425 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/29/2014