Court Opinion

ID: 9353016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 19:00:51.008542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:54.392123
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10170     Document: 00516604079         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/10/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                  No. 22-10170
                                Summary Calendar                            FILED
                                                                     January 10, 2023
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                Clerk

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Ronald Berry,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:21-CR-208-1

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Ronald Berry appeals his within-guidelines 168-month prison
   sentence that was imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession
   with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance
   containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine.

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10170      Document: 00516604079           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/10/2023

                                     No. 22-10170

          For preserved errors, we review the district court’s interpretation of
   the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See
   United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787, 791 (5th Cir. 2015). “A factual
   finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible, considering the record as a
   whole.” United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 396 (5th Cir. 2010).
          Berry argues that the district court erred in applying the two-level
   enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for
   the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. In
   particular, Berry contends that the plain language of § 2D1.1(b)(12) and its
   application notes preclude its application to a primary residence. We need
   not decide whether Berry has preserved that legal argument because it fails
   regardless of the standard of review. See Hernandez v. United States, 888 F.3d
   219, 222-23 (5th Cir. 2018). This court has held that the use of a premises as
   a residence does not preclude application of the drug-premises enhancement
   under § 2D1.1(b)(12). See United States v. Galicia, 983 F.3d 842, 844 (5th
   Cir. 2020).
          Moreover, Berry contends that there is insufficient evidence to
   support the premises enhancement in this case. The record, however,
   showed that, over three times in two weeks, a confidential source purchased
   drugs from Berry at his residence. Berry’s roommate, who had moved in with
   Berry six months prior to the arrest, knew Berry to deal drugs from the
   residence, and the roommate said that he even let Berry’s customers inside
   the residence so that Berry could sell them drugs. Furthermore, a search of
   the residence revealed: a surveillance system; thousands of dollars in drug
   proceeds; loaded handguns and a rifle; and three baggies of
   methamphetamine, two baggies of heroin, two baggies and two jars of
   marijuana, three baggies of cocaine, and six baggies of pills. Investigators also
   observed vehicle traffic arriving and departing from the residence. In view of

                                          2
Case: 22-10170      Document: 00516604079           Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/10/2023

                                     No. 22-10170

   the record, the district court did not clearly err in applying the drug-premises
   enhancement here. See Galicia, 983 F.3d at 845.
          In addition, Berry contends that the district court erred by considering
   his pending murder charge in sentencing him. We review this unpreserved
   challenge for plain error. See United States v. Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th 477, 481-
   82 (5th Cir. 2022). On plain error review, Berry must demonstrate that:
   (1) the district court erred; (2) the error was plain or obvious; (3) the error
   affected his substantial rights; and (4) the error “seriously affected the
   fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 482
   (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
          A district court cannot rely on a bare arrest record or a bare pending
   charge when determining a defendant’s sentence. See id. at 482-83. In this
   case, however, the pending charge was not bare because it was accompanied
   by a factual recitation of Berry’s conduct that gave rise to the charge, and the
   factual recitation had sufficient indicia of reliability because it was drawn
   from a police report and included information gathered from an interview
   with a witness. See id. at 482; United States v. Fields, 932 F.3d 316, 320 (5th
   Cir. 2019). Because the factual recitation possessed sufficient indicia of
   reliability and Berry did not offer any rebuttal evidence challenging the
   truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of the evidence supporting the factual
   recitation, the district court could properly consider the pending murder
   charge when imposing Berry’s sentence. See United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d
   226, 231 (5th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Berry has not shown any clear or
   obvious error.
          Moreover, Berry has not shown that the error, if any, affected his
   substantial rights. See Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th at 482. The district court did
   not mention the pending murder charge when providing its reasons for his
   sentence. Rather, the district court explained that its sentence was justified

                                          3
Case: 22-10170      Document: 00516604079           Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/10/2023

                                     No. 22-10170

   by the facts of the instant offense—Berry’s drug distribution offense. On this
   record, Berry has not demonstrated a “reasonable probability that he would
   have received a lesser sentence but for the court’s consideration” of his
   pending murder charge. Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th at 483.
          Finally, Berry contends that his sentence at the top of his guidelines
   range was greater than necessary to meet the sentencing objectives set forth
   in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. In support, Berry highlights: (1) the limited number of
   drug transactions with the confidential source; (2) his low criminal history
   score; (3) the nationwide median sentence for methamphetamine traffickers;
   and (4) his low risk for recidivism.
          As Berry preserved this challenge, our review is for an abuse of
   discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.
   Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2020). Where, as here, the
   district court imposed a sentence within the guidelines range, the sentence is
   entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness on appeal. United
   States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012). “The presumption is
   rebutted only upon a showing that the sentence does not account for a factor
   that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an
   irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in
   balancing sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th
   Cir. 2009).
          Berry has not made that showing here. The district court considered
   Berry’s mitigation arguments but determined that the 168-month sentence
   was necessary based on the § 3553(a) factors. Berry’s “claim amounts to a
   request that we reweigh the sentencing factors and substitute our judgment
   for that of the district court, which we will not do.” United States v.
   Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, Berry has not

                                          4
Case: 22-10170     Document: 00516604079         Page: 5   Date Filed: 01/10/2023

                                  No. 22-10170

   rebutted the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence is reasonable.
   See id.
             AFFIRMED.

                                        5