952 F.3d 686
5th Cir.2020Background
- Defendant Brandon Shane Eustice pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine for conduct from March 2017 to January 2018.
- The PSR attributed 411.07 grams of meth to Eustice (127.57 g from Boone; 283.5 g from Murfield) based on transaction evidence and text messages; Eustice conceded the Boone amount.
- Law enforcement searched Eustice’s residence and seized digital scales, meth pipes, suspected meth residue, and other paraphernalia; additional items were observed after his arrest.
- The PSR applied a two-level enhancement for maintaining a drug premises under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) and gave a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, producing an offense level of 27.
- The PSR assessed two criminal-history points for a state fraud conviction where deferred adjudication probation was later revoked and 255 days imprisonment was imposed; that yielded a Criminal-History Category IV and a guideline range of 100–125 months.
- The district court adopted the PSR, overruled Eustice’s objections, varied downward for personal history/addiction, and sentenced Eustice to 84 months’ imprisonment. The Fifth Circuit AFFIRMED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eustice) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drug-quantity calculation | Evidence unreliable/insufficient; improper use of multiplier; included personal-use amounts; court should discount estimate for uncertainty | PSR, texts, and Eustice’s concession as to Boone support the 411.07 g total; calculation plausible from record | Affirmed—quantity calculation not clearly erroneous; 411.07 g upheld |
| Drug-premises enhancement (§2D1.1(b)(12)) | Procedural error for not expressly considering comment n.17; enhancement unsupported by specific evidence | PSR/addendum addressed comment n.17; seized paraphernalia and texts showing transactions at residence provide reliable support | Affirmed—district court properly adopted PSR analysis and enhancement was supported |
| Criminal-history points for revoked deferred adjudication | Deferred adjudication should yield only one point under §4A1.1(c) | Revocation resulted in adjudication and 255 days’ imprisonment; counts as a prior sentence of imprisonment under §4A1.1(b) (2 points) | Affirmed—two points properly assessed; Valdez-Valdez logic applies and §4A1.2(k)(1) supports counting |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clark, 389 F.3d 141 (5th Cir. 2004) (district court may count drugs possessed for personal use when calculating conspiracy quantity)
- United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2005) (drug-quantity findings upheld if plausible in light of the record)
- United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825 (5th Cir. 1998) (standard for upholding quantity findings)
- United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2006) (courts may rely on reasonably reliable estimates and PSR information for sentencing)
- United States v. Kearby, 943 F.3d 969 (5th Cir. 2019) (describing concerns with improper extrapolation/multiplier method)
- United States v. Valdez-Valdez, 143 F.3d 196 (5th Cir. 1998) (deferred-adjudication sentences may count under §4A1.1(b) if imprisonment of ≥60 days is involved)
- United States v. Townsend, 408 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2005) (probation revocations resulting in jail time can be counted under §4A1.1(b))
- United States v. Baptiste, 876 F.3d 1057 (11th Cir. 2017) (construed deferred adjudication with adjudication withheld to merit only one point under §4A1.1(c))