USA v. Ronnell Sharpley
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-10152 Affirmed] Judge: JLW , Judge: CES , Judge: CH. Mandate pull date is 01/09/2012 for Appellant Ronnell Charles Sharpley [11-10152]
Date Filed: 12/19/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
December 19, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RONNELL CHARLES SHARPLEY, also known as Ronald Charles Sharpley,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:10-CR-141-1
Before WIENER, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Ronnell Charles Sharpley appeals his above-guidelines
sentence of 78 months in prison imposed following his guilty plea to bank theft,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). Sharpley challenges both the procedural and
substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Following United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review sentences for procedural error and substantive
reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), under an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 12/19/2011
Sharpley first contends that the district court erred in applying a two-level
enhancement for obstruction of justice.
The district court imposed the
enhancement based on a finding that Sharpely, while on pretrial release,
attempted improperly to influence codefendant Jayvon Gant’s statements to law
enforcement. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(a)). As he did in the district
court, Sharpley maintains that, because Gant is not credible, Gant’s statement
regarding Sharpley’s attempt to influence his testimony could not be used to
support the enhancement. Sharpley’s allegations as to the credibility, or lack
thereof, of Gant do not satisfy his burden of demonstrating that the information
on which the district court relied is materially untrue, inaccurate, or unreliable.
See United States v. Ford, 558 F.3d 371, 377 (5th Cir. 2009). Sharpley has not
shown that the district court’s finding that he obstructed justice was implausible
in light of the record as a whole. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204,
208 (5th Cir. 2008).
Sharpley also asserts that the district court committed reversible error by
making an upward departure or variance based on its factual finding that he
participated in an uncharged bank robbery. He maintains that the only evidence
that he participated in the robbery was the inherently inconsistent, unreliable
hearsay statements of Gant, Armon Perkins, and Kevin Williams.
Although these statements were not consistent in all respects, they were
consistent on one fact, i.e., that Sharpley was involved in the bank robbery.
Sharpley did not present evidence at sentencing showing that these statements
were materially inaccurate or untrue. Accordingly, we find that it was proper for
the district court to rely on them to find that Sharpley participated in the robbery.
See United States v. Shipley, 963 F.2d 56, 59 (5th Cir. 1992). Sharpley has not
shown that the district court’s determination that he participated in the robbery
was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764
(5th Cir. 2008).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?