United States v. Michael Dears , 584 F. App'x 272 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 14-10288      Document: 00512848923         Page: 1    Date Filed: 11/25/2014
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 14-10288                                   FILED
    Summary Calendar                         November 25, 2014
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    MICHAEL JASON DEARS,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:13-CR-30-16
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Michael Jason Dears pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiring to
    possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute and was sentenced to
    serve 168 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Now,
    he argues that the district court committed clear error at sentencing by
    erroneously calculating the amount of heroin for which he should be held
    responsible under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. Under Dears’s view, heroin attributable
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-10288    Document: 00512848923     Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/25/2014
    No. 14-10288
    to his state conviction should not have been used to calculate the instant
    sentence. Dears has not shown error in connection with his sentence.
    We review this claim for clear error. See United States v. Betancourt,
    
    422 F.3d 240
    , 244-45 (5th Cir. 2005). As long as a factual finding is plausible
    in light of the record as a whole, it is not clearly erroneous and should be
    upheld. United States v. Alaniz, 
    726 F.3d 586
    , 619 (5th Cir. 2013).
    “A presentence report generally bears sufficient indicia of reliability to
    be considered as evidence by the sentencing judge in making factual
    determinations.” United States v. Nava, 
    624 F.3d 226
    , 231 (5th Cir. 2010)
    (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The defendant bears the
    burden of presenting evidence to show that the facts contained in the
    presentence report are inaccurate or materially untrue. Alaniz, 726 F.3d at
    619. Because Dears adduced no evidence to rebut the factual findings in the
    PSR, the district court was free to adopt those findings, including the finding
    that he was responsible for more than eight kilograms of heroin. See Alaniz,
    726 F.3d at 619.
    Insofar as Dears contends that amounts of heroin involved with his state
    offense could not be used to calculate his federal sentence under U.S.S.G.
    § 1B1.3, comment.(n.8), he misreads that note. Because this case does not
    involve grouping of offenses under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d), § 1B1.3 is inapplicable.
    Cf. United States v. Bell, 
    46 F.3d 442
    , 445 (5th Cir. 1995) (“Since the state and
    federal charges arose from the same criminal conduct, all of the defendant’s
    conduct underlying the state charges would have fallen within the definition
    of ‘relevant conduct’ under the guidelines.”); United States v. Rosogie, 
    21 F.3d 632
    , 634 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting that the Constitution does not prohibit dual
    sovereigns from separately punishing an individual for the same conduct that
    violates both state and federal laws).
    2
    Case: 14-10288     Document: 00512848923   Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/25/2014
    No. 14-10288
    Finally, to the extent Dears complains that he was sentenced based on
    acts he took before the explicit date mentioned in the indictment, this
    argument offers him no succor. Although these quantities are arguably outside
    the time frame of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment, they are
    attributable to Dears as relevant conduct because they are part of the same
    scheme as the offense of conviction. See United States v. McCaskey, 
    9 F.3d 368
    ,
    375 (5th Cir. 1993).
    AFFIRMED.
    3