Court Opinion

ID: 9385510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 00:00:31.807201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:02.468885
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50204        Document: 00516703731             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/06/2023

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

                                     ____________                                    FILED
                                                                                  April 6, 2023
                                      No. 22-50204                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                    Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Cory Joe Barton,

                                                                  Defendant—Appellant.

                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:21-CR-37-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Jones, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Cory Joe Barton appeals his sentence of 335 months’ imprisonment
   for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of
   methamphetamine. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
         On April 13, 2021, Cory Joe Barton was indicted for conspiracy to
   possess with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute at least 500

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50204      Document: 00516703731             Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/06/2023

                                      No. 22-50204

   grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
   methamphetamine, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Barton pleaded guilty
   on July 13, 2021. On September 29, 2021, the United States Probation Office
   submitted an addendum revising the Presentence Investigation Report (the
   “PSR”). The PSR states that Barton was arrested on November 11, 2020,
   while in possession of approximately one kilogram of methamphetamine.
   The PSR also states that, during a proffer with the FBI, a methamphetamine
   distributor, Oscar Negrete, identified Barton as an individual to whom he had
   sold methamphetamine on multiple occasions. Negrete estimated that he had
   provided Barton with “15 kilograms, probably more” of methamphetamine.
   The PSR states that an analysis of the methamphetamine found in Barton’s
   possession was determined to be 77 percent pure, resulting in 713 grams of
   methamphetamine (actual). The PSR also estimates the purity of the 15
   kilograms of methamphetamine Negrete claimed to have sold Barton based
   on purity tests that had been conducted on methamphetamine seized by law
   enforcement     from     another     dealer       who   had   been   purchasing
   methamphetamine from Negrete. The PSR calculates that the average purity
   of this seized methamphetamine was 88 percent, resulting in 13.2 kilograms
   of methamphetamine (actual). According to the PSR, Barton should be held
   accountable for 13.91 kilograms of methamphetamine (actual), adding both
   methamphetamine (actual) amounts that it attributes to him. Relying, in part,
   on the methamphetamine it says is attributable to Barton, the PSR calculates
   that he should be subject to an imprisonment range of 292 to 365 months
   based on the sentencing guidelines. At sentencing, the district court accepted
   the PSR’s findings and sentenced Barton to 335 months’ imprisonment.
          Barton raises two issues on appeal, both relating to the reliability of
   facts on which the district court relied in imposing its sentence. We review
   the district court’s factual findings for clear error. United States v. Barfield,
   941 F.3d 757, 761 (5th Cir. 2019). “There is no clear error if the district

                                                 2
Case: 22-50204       Document: 00516703731           Page: 3      Date Filed: 04/06/2023

                                      No. 22-50204

   court’s finding[s] [are] plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United
   States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting United
   States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam)).
   “Generally, a PSR bears sufficient indicia of reliability to be considered as
   evidence by the sentencing judge in making factual determinations.” United
   States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 591 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v.
   Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir.2012)). “If the factual recitation [in the
   PSR] lacks sufficient indicia of reliability, then it is error for the district court
   to consider it at sentencing—regardless of whether the defendant objects or
   offers rebuttal evidence.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Harris, 702
   F.3d at 231). “But if the factual recitation in the PSR bears sufficient indicia
   of reliability, then the ‘defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the
   PSR is inaccurate; in the absence of rebuttal evidence, the sentencing court
   may properly rely on the PSR and adopt it.’” Id. (quoting United States v.
   Ollison, 555 F.3d 152, 164 (5th Cir.2009)). “Mere objections to [a PSR’s]
   supported facts are generally insufficient.” Harris, 702 F.3d at 230.
          First, Barton argues that there is no factual basis to connect him with
   the additional 15 kilograms of methamphetamine. Specifically, he contends
   that the PSR was improperly revised “outside the regular order of the
   presentence investigation report process” to include those facts concerning
   the additional 15 kilograms of methamphetamine. According to Barton, these
   facts should not have been considered by the district court as they only
   became part of the PSR through a faulty revisionary process. But Barton fails
   to identify how that process was in error. “At least 7 days before sentencing,
   the probation officer must submit to the court and to the parties the
   presentence report and an addendum containing any unresolved objections,
   the grounds for those objections, and the probation officer’s comments on
   them.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(g). Contrary to Barton’s reading, this rule
   did not prohibit the United States Probation Office from revising the PSR on

                                                3
Case: 22-50204      Document: 00516703731           Page: 4    Date Filed: 04/06/2023

                                     No. 22-50204

   its own. And Barton was still afforded an opportunity to object to the PSR in
   accordance with this rule; indeed, the PSR notes Barton’s objection to it
   calculating the methamphetamine’s purity. Accordingly, the method by
   which these facts were added to the PSR does not taint their reliability. The
   facts connecting Barton to the 15 kilograms of methamphetamine bear
   sufficient indicia of reliability as well. The PSR makes this connection based
   on Negrete’s statements that he sold Barton methamphetamine on multiple
   occasions, which eventually amounted to “15 kilograms, probably more.” An
   FBI special agent later confirmed this information at Barton’s sentencing
   hearing. The burden was thus on Barton to present rebuttal evidence—
   beyond an objection—which he did not do. See Zuniga, 720 F.3d at 591.
   Therefore, the district court did not err in relying on the PSR.
          Second, Barton asserts that the factual bases underlying the PSR’s
   purity calculations are deficient. Similar to his previous argument, Barton
   contends that all facts concerning the purity of methamphetamine that were
   added to the PSR during its revision should be discounted. Barton also
   challenges the methodology by which the PSR estimated the purity of the 15
   kilograms of methamphetamine. As we have already ruled, there was no error
   in how the PSR was revised. There are also sufficient indicia of reliability
   underlying the PSR’s purity calculation. “A district court may estimate drug
   quantity.” United States v. Lee, 966 F.3d 310, 327 (5th Cir. 2020). “It can
   base its findings on ‘any information that has “sufficient indicia of reliability
   to support its probable accuracy,” including a probation officer’s testimony,
   a policeman’s approximation of unrecovered drugs, and even hearsay.’” Id.
   (quoting United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 247 (5th Cir. 2005)).
   Here, the PSR estimates the purity of the 15 kilograms of methamphetamine
   based on the purity of methamphetamine seized from an associate of Barton,
   Ethan Eli Tinney, who was also being supplied by Negrete during the period
   of Barton’s offending conduct. Specifically, the PSR calculates the average

                                              4
Case: 22-50204     Document: 00516703731          Page: 5    Date Filed: 04/06/2023

                                   No. 22-50204

   purity of methamphetamine seized from Tinney on three separate occasions,
   calculating an average purity of 88 percent and imputing this purity level to
   the 15 kilograms of methamphetamine it attributes to Barton. This estimation
   is supported by the record, including the facts presented in the PSR and their
   verification through the testimony provided by the FBI special agent at
   Barton’s sentencing hearing. Barton fails to rebut these facts; consequently,
   we conclude that the court’s findings were not a product of clear error.
          AFFIRMED.

                                             5