United States v. Kenneth Barfield
941 F.3d 757
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- Barfield was arrested after police found a digital scale, needles, small bags, $917 (including $475 from a controlled buy) and 23.4 grams of methamphetamine in his vehicle.
- At interview (Mirandized), Barfield reportedly admitted owning the seized meth and said he had obtained and distributed one pound of meth per week from April 2017 until his November 2017 arrest (27 weeks).
- The PSR attributed 12.2 kg of actual meth to Barfield (453.6 g per pound × 27 weeks), producing a base offense level 38 and a Guidelines range of 360 months to life; the district court imposed 360 months.
- At plea, the court excluded the prosecutor’s factual proffer of those admissions but said the government could argue them again at sentencing; the PSR nonetheless reported the admissions as relevant conduct.
- Barfield objected at sentencing, asserting he was high and overstated his role to avoid arrest; he produced no evidence rebutting the PSR’s account.
- The district court found the PSR’s account sufficiently reliable; on appeal Barfield argued the aggregated quantity was unsupported by adequate evidentiary basis and required corroboration beyond the PSR.
Issues
| Issue | Barfield's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could rely on Barfield’s post-arrest admission in the PSR to calculate aggregated drug quantity | Admission was unreliable, self-serving, made while intoxicated, and the PSR’s 12.2 kg is a bald, uncorroborated extrapolation | A defendant’s own unrebutted post-arrest admission is sufficiently reliable; extrapolation is permitted from reliable information in a PSR | The court held no clear error: unrebutted admissions in the PSR may support the aggregated drug quantity |
| Whether the weekly pound transactions could be treated as "same course of conduct" and aggregated | Transactions were not proved as part of the same course of conduct tied to the seized meth | Admissions described identical weekly transactions for 27 weeks, showing temporal proximity and similarity | The court held they constituted a pattern and were relevant conduct subject to aggregation |
| Whether mathematical extrapolation from admissions requires independent corroboration (testimony/recordings) | Extrapolation needs corroborating evidence beyond a PSR entry or prosecutor proffer | Extrapolation is permitted where based on information with sufficient indicia of reliability (e.g., defendant’s admission); PSR is generally reliable | The court held corroboration beyond an unrebutted admission is not required; extrapolation was permissible |
| Who bears burden to rebut PSR allegations and effect of failure to do so | Barfield argued the PSR was inaccurate and unreliable | Government argued defendant must present rebuttal evidence; absent that, court may adopt PSR | The court held defendant bears burden to rebut; lacking evidence, the district court properly adopted the PSR |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2016) (review standards: de novo for Guidelines interpretation and clear error for factual findings)
- United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2013) (PSR generally bears sufficient indicia of reliability and defendant must rebut)
- United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2006) (court may extrapolate drug quantities from information with sufficient indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Elwood, 999 F.2d 814 (5th Cir. 1993) (bald, conclusory statements lack reliability in a PSR)
- United States v. Bryant, 991 F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1993) (broad definition of "same course of conduct" for drug transactions)
- United States v. Stephenson, 557 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 2009) (rejecting claim that defendant inflated sales to curry favor; addressing credibility of self-reports)