United States v. Ronnie Kearby, 943 F.3d 969

Background

Ronnie Kearby pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine for conduct in May–June 2016; he was sentenced to 235 months (within a Guidelines range of 188–235 months).
The PSR estimated drug quantity by using Herrera’s statement that she sold Kearby 1–3 ounces per day and conservatively used 1 ounce/day for a 60‑day participation period, totaling ~1,701 grams (U.S.S.G. base offense level 32).
The PSR applied a two‑level importation enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) because the meth came from Mexico; it also recommended a three‑level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, yielding an offense level of 31 and criminal history category VI.
Kearby objected to (1) the drug‑quantity estimate and Herrera’s reliability (she had deleted texts and cooperated for her own benefit), (2) the importation enhancement (he argued he did not know about importation), and (3) denial of a minor‑participant reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.
At sentencing the district court found Herrera credible based on agent testimony and corroboration, overruled Kearby’s objections, applied the importation enhancement irrespective of Kearby’s knowledge, denied the minor‑participant reduction, and imposed a within‑Guidelines 235‑month term.
On appeal Kearby argued procedural and substantive unreasonableness; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to quantity calculation, the importation enhancement, denial of minor‑role reduction, and substantive reasonableness.

Issues

Issue	Kearby’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Drug‑quantity calculation (reliability and multiplier)	Herrera was unreliable (deleted texts, motive to lie); 39 days (not 60); court improperly used a “multiplier” or should have discounted estimate	PSR estimate was conservative and supported by Herrera’s corroborated statements and agent testimony; facts were known, not extrapolated	Court did not clearly err; PSR estimate was reasonable and not an improper multiplier method
Use of coconspirator hearsay for quantity	Agent’s reliance on Herrera’s statements was insufficient without direct corroboration	Uncorroborated hearsay may be used if it bears indicia of reliability; Herrera had corroborated assistance in other investigations	Admissible for sentencing; district court’s credibility finding entitled to deference
Importation enhancement (§ 2D1.1(b)(5))	Enhancement requires defendant’s knowledge or temporal importation during defendant’s participation; due‑process challenge	Circuit precedent: enhancement applies where offense involved imported meth even without defendant’s knowledge or contemporaneous importation	Enhancement applies regardless of defendant’s knowledge or exact timing; Kearby waived any challenge to sufficiency of proof
Minor‑participant reduction (§ 3B1.2)	Kearby was less culpable and served a minor role; PSR’s conclusion was conclusory	PSR and record showed Kearby purchased and sold meth—not substantially less culpable; court considered factors via submissions and argument	No error: court adequately considered the § 3B1.2 factors and denied reduction
Substantive reasonableness of sentence	235 months is substantively unreasonable given alleged procedural errors and consumption amounts	Within‑Guidelines sentence carries rebuttable presumption of reasonableness; court considered § 3553(a) and Kearby’s criminal history	Sentence was substantively reasonable and affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825 (5th Cir. 1998) (drug‑quantity findings are factual and not set aside unless implausible)
United States v. Puig‑Infante, 19 F.3d 929 (5th Cir. 1994) (district court may adopt PSR facts with adequate evidentiary basis)
United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 2016) (hearsay may be relied on at sentencing if sufficiently reliable)
United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2005) (discusses extrapolation/multiplier method in quantity estimation)
United States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163 (5th Cir. 2002) (extrapolation of known events to unknown events criticized when inappropriate)
United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2012) (§ 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement applies without requiring knowledge of importation)
United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914 (5th Cir. 2014) (distribution of imported meth may trigger importation enhancement)
United States v. Rodriguez, 666 F.3d 944 (5th Cir. 2012) (possession with intent to distribute can "involve" importation even if importation occurred earlier)
United States v. Torres‑Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2016) (district court need not explicitly weigh every § 3B1.2 factor on the record)
United States v. Nguyen, 854 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2017) (two‑step reasonableness review procedure)