Court Opinion

ID: 9691729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 00:00:24.884092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:18:19.893605
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60668        Document: 00516871729             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/24/2023

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

                                     ____________                                FILED
                                                                           August 24, 2023
                                      No. 22-60668
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Alvin Ray Lucas,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 1:21-CR-54-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Alvin Ray Lucas pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess
   with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, and the
   district court sentenced him to 360 months of imprisonment, to be followed
   by five years of supervised release. He now appeals that sentence.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60668     Document: 00516871729           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/24/2023

                                    No. 22-60668

          First, Lucas argues that the district court clearly erred in calculating
   the drug quantity attributable to him because it was based on unreliable
   evidence and unsupported by the record. Because those challenges were
   preserved, we review them for clear error. See United States v. Zuniga, 720
   F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Ortega-Calderon, 814 F.3d 757,
   759 (5th Cir. 2016). Here, the district court’s drug quantity finding stemmed
   from sufficiently reliable evidence and is plausible based on the record,
   considering that the drug quantity recitations in the presentence report were
   based on a police investigation, the case agent’s testimony at the sentencing
   hearing, and the evidence admitted at the sentencing hearing corroborating
   the presentence report’s account of Lucas working as a middleman for the
   cooperating defendant. See United States v. Lucio, 985 F.3d 482, 485-87 (5th
   Cir. 2021); United States v. Thomas, 12 F.3d 1350, 1372 (5th Cir. 1994).
          Next, Lucas challenges the district court’s finding that he was a leader
   or organizer in the conspiracy on the basis that his deceased co-conspirator’s
   statements were unreliable hearsay. That contention was preserved, and we
   review it for clear error. See Ortega-Calderon, 814 F.3d at 759. The district
   court did not clearly err in concluding that the co-conspirator’s statements
   were reliable because they were the product of a police investigation and
   further bolstered by the evidence adduced at the sentencing hearing, which
   included a post-arrest report prepared by the case agent summarizing those
   statements. See Lucio, 985 F.3d at 485-86; Thomas, 12 F.3d at 1372.
          Finally, Lucas asserts that the district court should have varied
   downward sua sponte or held him accountable for methamphetamine
   mixture, rather than ice, for policy reasons. Reviewing both unpreserved
   contentions for plain error, we conclude that there was no error, plain or
   otherwise. See United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 618 (5th Cir. 2013);
   United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 338-39 (5th Cir. 2016).

                                         2
Case: 22-60668   Document: 00516871729       Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/24/2023

                              No. 22-60668

         For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is
   AFFIRMED.

                                   3