USA v. Jeffrey Elli

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11538 Affirmed] Judge: PEH, Judge: EHJ, Judge: JES. Mandate issue date is 12/04/2017 for Appellant Jeffrey Blake Ellis [16-11538]

Case: 16-11538

Document: 00514233185

Page: 1

Date Filed: 11/10/2017

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

No. 16-11538
Summary Calendar

FILED
November 10, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff−Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY BLAKE ELLIS, Also Known as “Jealous”,
Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
No. 4:16-CR-121-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jeffrey Ellis was convicted of one charge of conspiring to possess

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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: 16-11538

Document: 00514233185

Page: 2

Date Filed: 11/10/2017

No. 16-11538
methamphetamine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 240 months
in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. He maintains that the
district court erred by denying him the sentencing adjustment for acceptance
of responsibility and imposing the adjustment for obstruction of justice.
Ellis has shown no clear error in connection with the imposition of the
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 adjustment for obstruction of justice. See United States v.
Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008). The presentence report, on
which the district court was entitled to rely, set forth facts leading to a reasonable inference that Ellis had tried to intimidate a codefendant. See United
States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 619 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Caldwell,
448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006). In light of those facts, the conclusion that
Ellis obstructed justice is plausible and is not clearly erroneous. See JuarezDuarte, 513 F.3d at 208; U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment.(n.4(A)). Ellis also has not
shown that his is the exceptional case in which a defendant who receives the
§ 3C1.1 adjustment for obstruction of justice should also receive the U.S.S.G.
§ 3E1.1(a) reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v.
Chung, 261 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.

2