United States v. Chad Rankin

Case: 18-10232 Document: 00515550733 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 2, 2020
No. 18-10232 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Chad Emmett Rankin,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:17-CR-172-1
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Chad Emmett Rankin appeals his 235-month, within-guidelines range
sentence for illegally maintaining a drug-involved premises. He contends
that in light of Amendment 810 to the Sentencing Guidelines, the district
court erroneously denied him a guidelines reduction, under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1,
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 18-10232 Document: 00515550733 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2020
No. 18-10232
for acceptance of responsibility based on its findings that Rankin (1) falsely or
frivolously denied relevant conduct by objecting to the presentence report’s
attributable drug quantity determination and (2) failed to comply with the
court’s order to pay $500 per month toward his court-appointed counsel.
Because Rankin failed to object to either the presentence report’s
recommended denial or the district court’s actual denial of a § 3E1.1
adjustment, we review the district court’s actions for plain error. See United
States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 2011); see generally Puckett v.
United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). On the showing made, Rankin fails
to demonstrate reversible plain error; he does not argue how any error by the
district court in denying him a § 3E1.1 adjustment was clear or obvious under
existing law, how the court’s error affected his substantial rights, or why the
court’s plain error warrants the exercise of this court’s corrective discretion.
See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Nor does he cite any binding authority holding
the denial of a § 3E1.1 reduction to be error based on materially similar facts.
See United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015).
“[T]he burden of establishing entitlement to relief for plain error is
on the defendant claiming it.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S.
74, 82 (2004). To that end, Rankin “has the burden to show” each plain
error prong, United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2002),
including that plain error affected his substantial rights, see Molina-Martinez
v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016), and affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, see United States v.
Andaverde-Tinoco, 741 F.3d 509, 523 (5th Cir. 2013). By failing to address
these issues, Rankin has waived any argument that the district court’s denial
of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction amounted to reversible plain
error. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
2