USA v. Jeffrey Elli


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

Download PDF
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

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?