United States v. Billy Gentry, Jr.
941 F.3d 767
5th Cir.2019Background
- Seven defendants (Bounds, Herrera, Heaslet, Skaggs, Killough, Gentry, Short) were convicted after a four-day jury trial of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥50 grams of methamphetamine; all appealed various pretrial and sentencing rulings.
- Sentences ranged from 300 months to life; each defendant filed timely appeals challenging discrete rulings (counsel substitution, suppression, Confrontation Clause, CJA funding, sufficiency, and sentencing calculations/enhancements).
- The district court denied Bounds’s motions to substitute counsel, applied a two‑level obstruction enhancement, and sentenced him to 360 months (affirmed on appeal).
- The court admitted cell‑phone evidence from Herrera after finding the magistrate’s warrant and the officers’ reliance were objectively reasonable under the good‑faith exception (affirmed).
- The court relied on PSR information to calculate drug quantities and enhancements for several defendants; the Fifth Circuit vacated Killough’s sentence and remanded because the PSR contained a patently incorrect chronology that materially inflated quantity attribution; all other sentencing and trial challenges were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying Bounds’s motions to substitute counsel (conflict/communication) | Gov: No genuine conflict or breakdown; counsel could represent effectively | Bounds: Irreconcilable conflict and complete breakdown in communication requiring new counsel | Denied; no Sixth Amendment violation; abuse‑of‑discretion review; affirmed |
| Application of §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement to Bounds | Gov: Bounds manufactured a "false, contrived conflict" to disrupt proceedings | Bounds: Requests to change counsel and disputes are not obstruction | Enhancement upheld—court found credible evidence Bounds intended to obstruct; factual finding not clearly erroneous; affirmed |
| Suppression of Herrera’s cell phones (probable cause; good‑faith exception) | Gov: Affidavit supplied sufficient facts and officers reasonably relied on warrant | Herrera: Affidavit stale/miscalculated (omission of co‑conspirator’s arrest) and lacked nexus; good‑faith exception inapplicable | Good‑faith exception applies; warrant not shown to be recklessly misleading or "bare bones"; affirmed |
| Confrontation Clause re: Holliday invoking Fifth after some direct testimony (Heaslet/Herrera) | Gov: Cross‑examination limits were permissible and jury heard sufficient impeachment material | Defs: Witness waived Fifth on direct; exclusion of further cross violated confrontation rights | No Confrontation Clause violation; excluded questioning was cumulative; harmless; affirmed |
| CJA funds for private investigator (Skaggs) | Gov: No showing of particularized need; request was speculative | Skaggs: Investigator necessary to locate and interview potential witness Mackenzie | Denial not an abuse of discretion—defense failed to show likely material value; affirmed |
| Limits on cross‑examination and impeachment of government witness Judge (Skaggs) | Gov: Court reasonably limited repetitive or marginal cross‑examination; no material inconsistency to impeach | Skaggs: Exclusion prevented impeachment of inconsistent DEA report | No abuse of discretion; no material inconsistency existed; affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions (Skaggs, Short, others) | Gov: Testimony of cooperating witnesses and corroborating evidence supports conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt | Defs: Witnesses were unreliable addicts/cooperators and timeline weak | Evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution; convictions affirmed |
| Drug‑quantity attribution at sentencing (Killough) | Gov: PSR and witness statements (Priest, Feeney, Stikeleather) supported quantity attribution | Killough: PSR dates wrong—he was incarcerated much of the period used to compute kilograms | PSR contained a patently incorrect chronology fueling a large quantity estimate; no reliable indicia for 56.6 kg—sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Sentencing enhancements (Gentry: weapon §2D1.1(b)(1); importation §2D1.1(b)(5)) | Gov: PSR reports witnesses observed firearm and investigation linked suppliers to imported meth | Gentry: Enhancements rest on unreliable co‑defendant statements and times when he was incarcerated | Court found PSR had sufficient indicia of reliability for enhancements; incarceration gaps adjusted; enhancements and quantity attribution (after adjustments) affirmed |
| Sentencing quantity calculations (Short, Gentry, others) | Gov: Court may extrapolate from PSR and cooperating witness testimony with adequate indicia of reliability | Defs: Attributions based on vague time periods, unknown locations, and uncorroborated statements | Absent material factual errors like Killough’s, district court’s reliance on PSR was not clearly erroneous; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance and prejudice inquiry)
- Beets v. Scott, 65 F.3d 1258 (5th Cir. 1995) (conflict‑of‑interest and prejudice requirements under Strickland)
- United States v. Simpson, 645 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 2011) (review standard for substitution of counsel)
- United States v. Mitchell, 709 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2013) (complete breakdown in communication requires new counsel)
- United States v. Siddons, 660 F.3d 699 (3d Cir. 2011) (obstruction enhancement where defendant lied about reasons to change counsel)
- United States v. Payne, 341 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2003) (good‑faith exception inquiry and two‑stage review)
- United States v. Pope, 467 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2006) (definition and problems with "bare bones" affidavits)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause framework)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (limits on cross‑examination under Confrontation Clause)
- United States v. Templeton, 624 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2010) (Confrontation Clause review and harmless‑error analysis)
- United States v. Dinh, 920 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2019) (sentencing: extrapolating drug quantity from reliable information)
- United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2012) (PSR generally bears sufficient indicia of reliability; defendant must rebut)
- United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2013) (error to rely on PSR facts lacking indicia of reliability)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (constitutional limits on providing expert or investigative assistance to indigent defendants)
- United States v. Tobias, 662 F.2d 381 (5th Cir. 1981) (remedy when sentence relies on erroneous material information)