USA v. Matthew Rutledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10053 Affirmed] Judge: RHB, Judge: JEG, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 11/01/2016 for Appellant Matthew Rutledge [16-10053]

Case: 16-10053

Document: 00513712411

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/11/2016

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 16-10053
Summary Calendar

FILED
October 11, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
MATTHEW RUTLEDGE,

Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-151-20
Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Matthew Rutledge pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess, with the
intent

to

distribute,

50

grams

or

more

of

a

mixture

containing

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. He was sentenced,
inter alia, to 324-months imprisonment, at the bottom of the advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range. Rutledge challenges the court’s finding on the
amount of methamphetamine for which he was held responsible, asserting 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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: 16-10053

Document: 00513712411

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/11/2016

No. 16-10053
presentence investigation report (PSR) was not sufficiently specific to be
reliable.
Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly
preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness
under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly
calculate the Guideline-sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to
impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 48–51 (2007). In that respect, for
issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed
de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error.

E.g., United States v.

Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
The court’s drug-quantity determination is reviewed for clear error, with
the finding to be upheld as long as it is “plausible in light of the record as a
whole”. United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).

A drug-quantity finding for

sentencing purposes must be based on reliable evidence, such as a PSR. E.g.,
United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 832 (5th Cir. 1998). For the reasons that
follow, the drug-quantity finding was not clearly erroneous.
The only evidence Rutledge submits in connection with his objections to
the drug-quantity determination neither contradicts the information in the
PSR nor shows it unreliable. See United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230
(5th Cir. 2012) (stating defendant has the burden of presenting rebuttal
evidence demonstrating information in the PSR is unreliable).

Rutledge

presented a letter from a co-defendant, providing that his statements to the
authorities did not implicate Rutledge in the conspiracy. In addition to those
statements, however, the PSR also relied on information provided by numerous
other co-conspirators. Rutledge’s contentions against the reliability of the PSR
are conclusory and unsupported.

2

Case: 16-10053

Document: 00513712411

Page: 3

Date Filed: 10/11/2016

No. 16-10053
Additionally, to the extent Rutledge asserts the court failed to comply
with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) (district court to resolve
and rule on disputed portions of PSR), his contention is unsupported by the
record. At sentencing, the court explicitly addressed Rutledge’s objections to
the drug quantity and overruled them, finding there was no evidence
detracting from the PSR’s reliability.
AFFIRMED.

3