United States v. Ki Crowder ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 14-10558      Document: 00512914148         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/26/2015
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    No. 14-10558
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    Summary Calendar                         January 26, 2015
    Lyle W. Cayce
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                         Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    KI ROSHUN CROWDER,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:13-CR-163-1
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Ki Roshun Crowder pleaded guilty to a superseding information
    charging him with one count of distribution of heroin, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Based on his post-arrest statements, the revised
    presentence report (PSR) calculated a total drug quantity of 423.7 ounces, or
    12.01 kilograms, of heroin. Using the 2013 Guidelines Manual, the revised
    PSR assigned him a total offense level of 39 and a Criminal History Category
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 14-10558     Document: 00512914148     Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/26/2015
    No. 14-10558
    of III, which yielded a guidelines range of imprisonment of 324 months to 405
    months. However, because the statutory maximum sentence of 20 years, see
    § 841(b)(1)(C), was less than the minimum of the guidelines range, the
    guidelines sentence was 240 months. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a). Crowder now
    appeals his sentence. He contends that the district court failed to exclude from
    its calculation of total drug quantity those drugs that were intended for
    personal use. He also asserts that the district court overstated the total drug
    quantity because, in the Fort Worth area, an “ounce” of heroin is actually 25
    grams, as opposed to the proper metric measure, 28.35 grams.
    At sentencing, Crowder presented no evidence related to his purported
    personal use of heroin to refute the PSR’s statement that the total quantity of
    heroin involved was 12.01 kilograms. Likewise, he provided no estimate at
    sentencing as to the amount of heroin intended for personal use. The PSR’s
    estimate of total drug quantity intended for distribution was based on
    Crowder’s own post-arrest statements. Where, as here, the defendant presents
    no evidence to refute the facts to which he objects, the facts contained in the
    PSR may be adopted by the district court without further inquiry, as long as
    they have an adequate evidentiary basis. United States v. Alford, 
    142 F.3d 825
    , 831-32 (5th Cir. 1998). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the
    district court did not err, much less clearly err, in adopting the PSR’s position
    that the total drug quantity attributable to Crowder involved an estimated
    12.01 kilograms of heroin. See United States v. Betancourt, 
    422 F.3d 240
    , 246
    (5th Cir. 2005).
    As to Crowder’s next argument, we note that, by his own estimates, even
    if his drug quantity total is calculated such that an “ounce” of heroin is only 25
    grams, it would reduce the amount involved in the offense conduct to only 10.59
    kilograms. This results in a base offense level of 36, which is no different than
    2
    Case: 14-10558    Document: 00512914148     Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/26/2015
    No. 14-10558
    the base offense level for 12.01 kilograms of heroin. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.
    Accordingly, we need not reach the merits of Crowder’s argument. Assuming,
    arguendo, that the district court erred, any error was harmless, or did not
    affect his substantial rights, because the record demonstrates that the district
    court would have imposed the same sentence in the absence of any error due
    to the operation of the statutory maximum. See United States v. Delgado-
    Martinez, 
    564 F.3d 750
    , 753 (5th Cir. 2009); see also § 841(b)(1)(C); § 5G1.1(a).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-10558

Judges: Higginbotham, Jones, Higginson

Filed Date: 1/26/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024