United States v. Favors ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30191
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALD JOSEPH FAVORS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CR-60045-1
--------------------
June 14, 2001
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Joseph Favors, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession with
intent to distribute over 50 grams of cocaine base. The district
court granted Favors an out-of-time appeal. On appeal he
contends that the district court erroneously included the
quantities of three prior drug purchases as part of the relevant
conduct for sentencing purposes. This court reviews for clear
error the district court’s determination of what constitutes
relevant conduct. United States v. Wall, 180 F.3d 641, 644 (5th
Cir. 1999). The district court’s drug-quantity determination is
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-30191
-2-
also reviewed for clear error. United States v. Torres, 114 F.3d
520, 527 (5th Cir. 1997).
Favors bought cocaine base from the same source on four
occasions within four months, including the incident to which he
pleaded guilty. The purpose of the conduct and mode of operation
were similar in each instance. The district court did not commit
clear error in considering these purchases relevant conduct for
sentencing purposes. See, e.g., United States v. Ocana, 204
F.3d 585, 589-90 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 121 S. Ct. 192 (2000)
(unlawful conduct within one year was relevant); United States v.
Bethley, 973 F.2d 396, 400-401 (5th Cir. 1992) (drug purchases
from same source within six months constituted relevant conduct).
The district court correctly relied on the Presentence Report for
the factual basis of the relevant-conduct determination and for
the drug-quantity calculations. See United States v.
Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929, 943 (5th Cir. 1994) (court may rely on
Presentence Report absent rebuttal evidence).
The sentence imposed by the district court was not in
violation of law, the result of an incorrect guideline
application, or a departure from the applicable guideline range.
United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 117 (5th Cir. 1995). It is
AFFIRMED.