United States v. Eric Overstreet, 693 F. App'x 374

Overstreet was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance and received a 240‑month prison sentence.
At sentencing the district court relied on statements by a now‑deceased declarant to assess several offense‑level enhancements.
The court applied enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) (possession of a firearm) and § 2D1.1(b)(2) (credible threat of violence) based on testimony that Overstreet brandished a gun and threatened the declarant during a drug transaction.
The court applied a § 3B1.1(b) role enhancement (manager/supervisor) based on evidence of five or more participants, Overstreet paying the declarant to assist in transactions, and the declarant’s role in following Overstreet and providing interference in encounters with law enforcement.
Overstreet argued due process/confrontation violations from reliance on hearsay by a deceased declarant and also claimed the sentence was substantively unreasonable for not giving sufficient weight to his history and characteristics.
The district court imposed a within‑Guidelines sentence after considering the § 3553(a) factors; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reliance on hearsay from a deceased declarant at sentencing violated confrontation/due process rights	Overstreet: court violated his rights by using the declarant’s statements without cross‑examination	Government: reliance on such statements is permitted; issue foreclosed by precedent	Denied — issue is foreclosed by binding Fifth Circuit precedent; no reversal
Whether § 2D1.1(b)(1) firearm enhancement was proper	Overstreet: disputed factual basis for firearm enhancement	Government: record supports that Overstreet brandished a gun during a drug transaction	Affirmed — factual findings plausible and not clearly erroneous
Whether § 2D1.1(b)(2) threat enhancement was proper	Overstreet: contested whether there was a credible threat to use violence	Government: statements and agent testimony support finding of a credible threat	Affirmed — factual findings plausible and not clearly erroneous
Whether § 3B1.1(b) role enhancement and substantive reasonableness of sentence were proper	Overstreet: court misapplied role enhancement and failed to give adequate weight to mitigating personal history	Government: record shows five+ participants, paid assistant role, and court considered § 3553(a) factors; within‑Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable	Affirmed — role enhancement not clearly erroneous; within‑Guidelines sentence not substantively unreasonable

United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102 (5th Cir. 2006) (confrontation/hearsay issue foreclosed)
United States v. Rodriguez‑Guerrero, 805 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2015) (standard for assessing district court factual findings at sentencing)
United States v. Medrano‑Rodriguez, [citation="606 F. App'x 759"] (5th Cir. 2015) (supporting application of § 2D1.1 enhancements)
United States v. Juarez‑Duarte, 513 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2008) (deference to district court reliability determinations at sentencing)
United States v. Bowen, 818 F.3d 179 (5th Cir. 2016) (application of role enhancements under § 3B1.1)
United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2013) (clearly erroneous standard for guideline enhancement findings)
United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2013) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑Guidelines sentences)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (appellate courts should not reweigh § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Rodriguez‑Bernal, 783 F.3d 1002 (5th Cir. 2015) (appellate review of sentencing discretion)