USA v. Robert Baggott

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11449 Affirmed] Judge: WED, Judge: EBC, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 08/23/2017 for Appellant Robert Baggott [16-11449]

Case: 16-11449

Document: 00514099712

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/02/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-11449
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 2, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ROBERT BAGGOTT,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CR-21-9
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Robert Baggott appeals the 188-month sentence imposed following his
guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a
controlled substance, namely methamphetamine. Baggott argues that the
district court clearly erred in calculating the drug quantity attributable to him
because (1) two of his suppliers were incarcerated during some of the time he
participated in the conspiracy and (2) there was no evidence to support 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-11449

Document: 00514099712

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/02/2017

No. 16-11449
extrapolation of drug purity from the samples of methamphetamine seized at
the time of his arrest.
We review the district court’s determination of the quantity of drugs
attributable to a defendant, which is a factual finding, for clear error. United
States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005). The incarceration
records purporting to show that the sources of Baggott’s methamphetamine
were incarcerated at relevant periods and the interview excerpt from one of
the sources are insufficient to show that the district court’s drug quantity
determination, which was amply supported by reliable information in the
presentence report, was clearly erroneous. See Betancourt, 422 F.3d at 248.
We also reject Baggott’s contention that the court erred by extrapolating the
drug purity from the samples seized when he was arrested. See United States
v. Rodriguez, 666 F.3d 944, 947 (5th Cir. 2012).
The district court’s findings regarding the drug quantity attributable to
Baggott, as well as the purity level, were “plausible in light of the record as a
whole.” Betancourt, 422 F.3d at 246. Accordingly, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.

2