United States v. Quezada ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10640 Document: 00515780644 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 15, 2021
No. 20-10640 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Juan Pablo Quezada,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-364-1
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Ho and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juan Pablo Quezada appeals his 480-month sentence of imprisonment
after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least
50 grams of methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. § 846; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B). In 2019, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10640 Document: 00515780644 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2021
No. 20-10640
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began investigating Quezada for
methamphetamine distribution. After receiving large amounts of
methamphetamine on multiple occasions from his source, Quezada would
sell the drugs to several individuals who, in turn, sold them to their
customers. To obtain and deliver the drugs, Quezada relied on several
couriers, and he directed others to coordinate the activities of those couriers.
Quezada’s Presentence Report (PSR) attributed to him for sentencing
purposes 2,977,672 kilograms of converted drug weight. Although the
Sentencing Guidelines recommended a term of life in prison, Quezada
received 480 months, the statutory maximum.
Quezada’s counseled brief is not entitled to liberal construction. See
Woodfox v. Cain, 609 F.3d 774, 792 (5th Cir. 2010). Thus, his first claim on
appeal that the district court clearly erred in accepting the PSR’s calculation
of drug quantity attributable to him is waived due to inadequate briefing. See
United States v. Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 439-40 (5th Cir. 2009); Fed.
R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). He failed to identify or explain (1) what portion of
the drug quantity he is disputing; (2) which statements by co-defendants he
is challenging; (3) how the PSR is unreliable; and (4) how United States v.
Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 1993), supports his position. His second claim
on appeal regarding his role enhancement as a leader or organizer of a
criminal activity, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), is also waived due to inadequate
briefing; he failed to cite analogous cases, point to specific portions of the
record, or explain his argument beyond a handful of conclusory and
nonspecific statements. See Stalnaker, 571 F.3d at 439-40; Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(8)(A).
However, even assuming arguendo that Quezada adequately briefed
these issues, his claims would still fail. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d
433, 448-49 (5th Cir. 2010) (addressing merits of an inadequately-briefed
issue). Quezada’s PSR is sufficiently reliable because it contains several
2
Case: 20-10640 Document: 00515780644 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2021
No. 20-10640
paragraphs detailing his drug activities, including quantities of drugs and his
role as a leader, which are based on the results of an investigation by the DEA
and the FBI. See United States v. Fuentes, 775 F.3d 213, 220 (5th Cir. 2014).
Furthermore, Quezada stipulated in his factual resume that he directed or
instructed others. Quezada has failed to present any rebuttal evidence to
question the veracity of the information in his PSR. See United States v.
Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2012). Thus, the district court neither
clearly erred in accepting the PSR’s drug quantity calculation, see United
States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005), nor clearly erred in
awarding Quezada a role enhancement for being a leader of the criminal
activity, see United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 293 (5th Cir. 2006).
Therefore, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Beyond the waiver issues discussed above, Quezada’s brief also fails
to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(6) because it did
not contain a statement of the case with facts “relevant to the issues . . . with
appropriate references to the record.” Additionally, counsel who authored
the brief, J. Warren St. John, apparently copied and pasted the drug quantity
argument from two briefs that he previously filed in this court for other
defendants without tailoring it to the unique facts of Quezada’s case. He also
incorrectly stated the length of Quezada’s sentence. We previously
admonished St. John for generically copying and pasting arguments in United
States v. Coleman, 610 F. App’x 347, 356, 356 n.3 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that
issue on appeal was abandoned because argument was “conclusory,
nonspecific and unpersuasive”). Thus, counsel is WARNED that future
frivolous filings could subject him to sanctions. See United States v. Garcia,
672 F. App’x 442, 443 (5th Cir. 2016) (issuing sanction warning to counsel
for same).
3