United States v. Turner ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D
FIFTH CIRCUIT
January 30, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-30913 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JASON M. TURNER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(05:04-CR-50170-1)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jason Turner appeals his 210-month sentence, following his
guilty-plea conviction, for conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or
more of methamphetamine or 500 grams or more of a substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Turner contends the district court
erroneously enhanced his sentence, pursuant to Sentencing
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
Guidelines § 3B1.1(c), for directing and supervising another
participant’s activities.
A factual finding that a defendant was an organizer, leader,
manager, or supervisor under § 3B1.1(c) is reviewed only for clear
error. E.g., United States v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560, 584 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2363 (2006). Among other things,
the presentence report stated Turner’s roommate, Guy Wilbanks,
served as Turner’s personal assistant in distributing drugs and
maintaining Turner’s financial records; and, at sentencing, a
police officer gave unrebutted testimony that Wilbanks drove a drug
shipment from Phoenix to Dallas at Turner’s direction. Therefore,
the district court did not clearly err in imposing the enhancement.
E.g., United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 725 (5th Cir.)
(upholding a § 3B1.1(c) two-level enhancement when the district
court did not clearly err in finding defendant was an “organizer,
leader, manager, or supervisor” in a marijuana conspiracy), cert.
denied, 538 U.S. 1017 (2003).
Because the district court did not err in imposing the §
3B1.1(c) enhancement, we need not reach Turner’s contention that
his resulting bottom-of-the-advisory-Guidelines-range sentence is
unreasonable.
AFFIRMED
2