Court Opinion

ID: 9387206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-16 15:00:20.576312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:12.079420
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40431         Document: 00516712330             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                      ____________                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                                    FILED
                                       No. 22-40431                             April 14, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                   Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Henry Lamar Ross,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:20-CR-19-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Henry Ross was convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition
   after a felony conviction and was sentenced to 80 months, above the advisory
   guideline range of 51 to 63 months. On appeal, Ross maintains that the sen-
   tence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable, and he asks us to view
   a purported deficiency in the trial transcript as prejudicial.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40431      Document: 00516712330           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/14/2023

                                     No. 22-40431

          Sentences are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gall v.
   United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Although Ross concedes that some of
   his sentencing arguments are unpreserved, and therefore subject to plain-
   error review, we need not address that point because the standard of review
   is not dispositive. See United States v. Burney, 992 F.3d 398, 400 (5th Cir.
   2021). We review a district court’s application of the guidelines de novo and
   its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324,
   327 (5th Cir. 2016).
          Ross contends there was insufficient evidence to support findings at
   sentencing that he was on parole at the time of the offense and that a sub-
   stance found in a backpack was marihuana. When presented with facts that
   “have an adequate evidentiary basis with sufficient indicia of reliability,” a
   sentencing court may adopt them without further inquiry if the defendant
   “does not present rebuttal evidence or otherwise demonstrate” that the
   information is unreliable. United States v. Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353, 357 (5th Cir.
   2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because Ross has not
   shown that statements about his parole history in the presentence report
   were false or unreliable, he fails to establish that the district court erred by
   accepting those statements. See United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230
   (5th Cir. 2012). Ross also has not shown that it was clearly erroneous for the
   court to conclude that evidence presented at trial sufficiently proved that the
   substance in the backpack was marihuana. See Trujillo, 502 F.3d at 357.
          A non-guideline sentence is substantively unreasonable if it “(1) does
   not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives
   significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear
   error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” Burney, 992 F.3d
   at 400 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Ross contends that
   because his criminal history was already reflected in the guideline range, it
   was improper for the court to rely on that history to support an above-

                                              2
Case: 22-40431      Document: 00516712330          Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/14/2023

                                    No. 22-40431

   guidelines sentence. He is mistaken. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d
   347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008).
          Ross’s final claim concerns the trial transcript. At one point, the tran-
   script states that the superseding indictment was read in open court; the
   reading itself is not transcribed. Although Ross describes that as a significant
   omission and asks us to view it as presumptively prejudicial, he makes no
   showing of prejudice. There is also no indication that Ross sought to correct
   any material omissions or misstatements in the record. See Fed. R. App.
   P. 10(e). Nor does he offer any excuse for failing to do so. We accordingly
   decline to consider this claim. See United States v. Hinojosa, 958 F.2d 624,
   632–33 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 415–16 (5th
   Cir. 1990); Buckelew v. United States, 575 F.2d 515, 519–20 (1978).
          AFFIRMED.

                                              3