United States v. Dusty Loughridge

Case: 17-30903 Document: 00514701858 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 17-30903 October 29, 2018
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DUSTY EUGENE LOUGHRIDGE,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:17-CR-24-2
Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Dusty Eugene Loughridge appeals the 235-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. He
asserts that the district court clearly erred in applying a two-point
enhancement to his sentence for his role in the offense.
Section 3B1.1(c) provides for a two-level enhancement if the defendant
is an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of criminal activity. U.S.S.G.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-30903 Document: 00514701858 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2018
No. 17-30903
§ 3B1.1(c). The commentary provides that a defendant qualifies for a § 3B1.1
enhancement if he was “the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or
more other participants.” § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2). A district court’s finding
regarding a defendant’s role in an offense is reviewed for clear error, United
States v. Rose, 449 F.3d 627, 633 (5th Cir. 2006), and the factual finding that a
defendant is a leader or organizer need only be supported by a preponderance
of the evidence, United States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929, 944 (5th Cir. 1994).
Contrary to Loughridge’s argument, the district court did not clearly err
in finding that he exercised a supervisor role in the drug conspiracy. When the
evidence demonstrates that a defendant directed another in his drug
trafficking activities, a sentence enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) is appropriate.
See United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 725 (5th Cir. 2003). The evidence
in the record indicates that Loughridge, at the very least, exercised control over
Cody James Bradberry by directing Bradberry to collect drug debts on his
behalf. See Turner, 319 F.3d at 725. Accordingly, the district court’s finding
that Loughridge exercised a supervisor role in the drug conspiracy is “plausible
in light of the record as a whole.” Rose, 449 F.3d at 633. The judgment of the
district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
2