United States v. Caleb Smith
674 F. App'x 422
5th Cir.2017Background
- Caleb Smith pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and appealed his sentence.
- PSR attributed 373.6 grams of “methamphetamine actual” to Smith based on: 103 g seized from his vehicle (119 g at purity adjusted to 103 g), 7 g he supplied to another, and ~270.6 g attributed via a codefendant’s admissions (based on her purchases and Smith’s presence).
- The district court used the PSR findings to set Smith’s base offense level at 32 (150–500 g methamphetamine actual required).
- Smith argued the court should have limited accountability to only the amounts actually recovered from him or corroborated amounts (29.6 g on Feb 26 and 119.5 g on Mar 3, 2015).
- Smith also contended the court improperly relied on his prior arrest for transporting chemicals to manufacture drugs; he did not raise that objection below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drug-quantity attribution at sentencing | Smith: accountable only for meth amounts actually recovered or corroborated (29.6 g + 119.5 g) | Government/District Ct: PSR, police reports, and codefendant admissions support attribution of ≥150 g (total 373.6 g) | Court: Affirmed; district court did not clearly err in attributing at least 150 g based on PSR and record as whole |
| Consideration of prior unadjudicated arrest | Smith: district court gave improper weight to prior arrest for transporting chemicals | Government: Smith did not object below; court primarily relied on criminal history and only referenced burglary arrest | Court: Affirmed; review for plain error fails because court did not rely on unadjudicated arrests other than burglary |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2005) (drug-quantity findings at sentencing reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2014) (sentencing facts determined by preponderance of sufficiently reliable evidence)
- United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2012) (defendant must rebut PSR drug-quantity allegations to show material inaccuracy)
- United States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163 (5th Cir. 2002) (district court may adopt PSR facts based on police reports with adequate indicia of reliability)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (preservation requirement and plain-error review standard)
- United States v. Williams, 620 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2010) (limitations on consideration of unadjudicated offenses at sentencing)