USA v. David Sheppard


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11105 Affirmed] Judge: CDK, Judge: JWE, Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 08/17/2017 for Appellant David Sheppard [16-11105]

Download PDF
Case: 16-11105 Document: 00514090904 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-11105 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 27, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DAVID SHEPPARD, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-21-5 Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * David Sheppard pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced him to 235 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. Sheppard appeals the application of the U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement for an offense that involved 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-11105 Document: 00514090904 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2017 No. 16-11105 importation of methamphetamine. He argues that there was an inadequate evidentiary basis for the offense level enhancement. Because Sheppard did not present rebuttal evidence to contradict the information in the presentence report, the district permissibly relied on it. See United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 591 (5th Cir. 2013). Sheppard has not shown that the district court clearly erred when it applied the § 2D1.1(b)(5) importation enhancement. See United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2012). AFFIRMED. 2

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?