United States v. Thaxter Reynolds , 667 F. App'x 870 ( 2016 )

Case: 16-30041 Document: 00513630373 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-30041 FILED
Summary Calendar August 9, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
THAXTER D. REYNOLDS, also known as T-Bone,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:15-CR-91-3
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Thaxter D. Reynolds pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to
conspiring to distribute and possess intending to distribute cocaine, and he
received a 46-month prison sentence. Though he frames the issue on appeal
in part as whether the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss, he
focuses his argument exclusively on the drug quantity finding used to calculate
his sentence. Because he has failed to brief the issue whether the denial of the
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-30041 Document: 00513630373 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2016
No. 16-30041
motion to dismiss was proper, he has abandoned it. See United States v.
Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8).
Reynolds argues that the district court erred in attributing to him seven
ounces of cocaine purchased from a supplier. Reynolds, though, did not object
to the drug quantity determination at sentencing; accordingly, our review is
for plain error only. See United States v. Rojas, 812 F.3d 382, 413 (5th Cir.
2016), cert. denied sub nom. Moya-Buitrago v. United States, No. 15-9051, 2016
WL 1626557 (June 6, 2016), and cert. denied sub nom. Cabalcante v. United
States, No. 15-9115, 2016 WL 1703469 (June 6, 2016), and cert. denied, No. 15-
9143, 2016 WL 1722863 (June 6, 2016), and cert. denied sub nom. Pineda v.
United States, No. 15-9151, 2016 WL 1733448 (June 6, 2016). Factual
disputes, such as drug quantity, that the district court could have resolved
upon a timely objection at sentencing can never constitute plain error. See
United States v. Claiborne, 676 F.3d 434, 438 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v.
Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456, 1479 (5th Cir. 1993). Regardless, Reynolds admitted in
the factual basis that he discussed the purchase of these drugs with the
supplier “in furtherance of the conspiracy,” and that he packaged previously
purchased drugs for resale. Accordingly, the finding was not erroneous. See
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) & comment. (n.3); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.5);
United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 415 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v.
Lombardi, 138 F.3d 559, 562 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.
2