United States v. Gabriel Barry
978 F.3d 214
| 5th Cir. | 2020Background
- Federal agents and Wichita Falls PD suspected Gabriel Barry of meth trafficking; police searched his home and seized meth and $14,658 in cash.
- Barry pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute meth, admitting he supplied approximately 122 grams during the conspiracy.
- The PSR converted the seized $14,658 into 852.2 grams and attributed a total of 1,023.5 grams to Barry, raising his Guideline offense level and sentencing range (151–188 months vs. 100–125 months without the converted cash).
- Barry objected that the cash was not shown to be drug proceeds and that any proceeds were not relevant to his admitted controlled buys; the district court overruled the objection, adopted the PSR, and sentenced him to 160 months.
- On appeal Barry argued (1) insufficient evidence tied the cash to drug sales and (2) any drug sales producing the cash were not relevant conduct to his conviction; the Fifth Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and law de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court permissibly converted seized cash into a drug-quantity equivalent under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 Note 5 | Government: PSR conversion proper because facts supported that the seized amount did not reflect the scale of the offense and the cash was drug proceeds | Barry: No direct evidence connects the $14,658 to drug sales; PSR assertion is bald and unreliable | Held: No clear error. District court implicitly found seized drugs didn’t reflect scale by adopting PSR; circumstantial evidence sufficed to tie cash to meth proceeds. |
| Whether proceeds represented relevant conduct to the convicted controlled buys (same course of conduct/common scheme) | Government: Temporal proximity, admissions, seizure of meth and prior investigation show the cash stemmed from recent related drug sales | Barry: Lack of direct evidence of timing, drugs involved, or linkage to the buys means proceeds aren’t relevant conduct | Held: No clear error. Close temporal proximity and other circumstantial evidence supported finding the cash was relevant conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of guideline interpretation; clear-error for factual findings)
- Akins, 746 F.3d 590 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard for clear-error review—must not leave a definite and firm conviction of mistake)
- Henderson, 254 F.3d 543 (5th Cir. 2001) (§ 2D1.1 Note 5 authorizes converting money to drug quantity when no seizure or seizure doesn't reflect scale)
- Alford, 142 F.3d 825 (5th Cir. 1998) (district courts may estimate drug quantity at sentencing)
- Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2005) (conversion permitted if preponderance of sufficiently reliable evidence shows money came from drug sales)
- Rico, 864 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2017) (PSR generally reliable, but bald conclusory statements are insufficient)
- Rhine, 583 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 2009) (factors for ‘‘same course of conduct’’: similarity, regularity, time interval)
- Barfield, 941 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2019) (district courts may consider other offenses that constitute relevant conduct under § 1B1.3)
- Ocana, 204 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 2000) (temporal proximity—offenses within one year often qualify as relevant conduct)
- Wall, 180 F.3d 641 (5th Cir. 1999) (distinguishing relevance where alleged conduct occurred years apart)
- Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1977) (courts may consider evidence of uncharged or unconvicted crimes at sentencing)
- Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2007) (district court may adopt PSR facts having adequate indicia of reliability)
- Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2017) (adopting a PSR can supply implicit factual findings)