United States v. Lucas ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60668 Document: 00516871729 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
August 24, 2023
No. 22-60668
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Alvin Ray Lucas,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:21-CR-54-1
______________________________
Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Alvin Ray Lucas pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, and the
district court sentenced him to 360 months of imprisonment, to be followed
by five years of supervised release. He now appeals that sentence.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60668 Document: 00516871729 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2023
No. 22-60668
First, Lucas argues that the district court clearly erred in calculating
the drug quantity attributable to him because it was based on unreliable
evidence and unsupported by the record. Because those challenges were
preserved, we review them for clear error. See United States v. Zuniga, 720
F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Ortega-Calderon, 814 F.3d 757,
759 (5th Cir. 2016). Here, the district court’s drug quantity finding stemmed
from sufficiently reliable evidence and is plausible based on the record,
considering that the drug quantity recitations in the presentence report were
based on a police investigation, the case agent’s testimony at the sentencing
hearing, and the evidence admitted at the sentencing hearing corroborating
the presentence report’s account of Lucas working as a middleman for the
cooperating defendant. See United States v. Lucio, 985 F.3d 482, 485-87 (5th
Cir. 2021); United States v. Thomas, 12 F.3d 1350, 1372 (5th Cir. 1994).
Next, Lucas challenges the district court’s finding that he was a leader
or organizer in the conspiracy on the basis that his deceased co-conspirator’s
statements were unreliable hearsay. That contention was preserved, and we
review it for clear error. See Ortega-Calderon, 814 F.3d at 759. The district
court did not clearly err in concluding that the co-conspirator’s statements
were reliable because they were the product of a police investigation and
further bolstered by the evidence adduced at the sentencing hearing, which
included a post-arrest report prepared by the case agent summarizing those
statements. See Lucio, 985 F.3d at 485-86; Thomas, 12 F.3d at 1372.
Finally, Lucas asserts that the district court should have varied
downward sua sponte or held him accountable for methamphetamine
mixture, rather than ice, for policy reasons. Reviewing both unpreserved
contentions for plain error, we conclude that there was no error, plain or
otherwise. See United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 618 (5th Cir. 2013);
United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 338-39 (5th Cir. 2016).
2
Case: 22-60668 Document: 00516871729 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/24/2023
No. 22-60668
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
3