USA v. Wayne Worley, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11816 Affirmed] Judge: EGJ, Judge: PRO, Judge: CH. Mandate issue date is 12/01/2017 for Appellant Wayne Lamarr Worley Jr.; denying motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8544827-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [8544827-3] [16-11816]

Case: 16-11816

Document: 00514232591

Page: 1

Date Filed: 11/09/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-11816
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
November 9, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
WAYNE LAMARR WORLEY, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CR-108-1
Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Wayne Lamarr Worley, Jr. appeals his below-guidelines-range sentence
of 188 months imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine. Worley argues that the district court erred in
accepting the drug quantity calculation in the presentence report because the
information in the presentence report (PSR) lacked sufficient indicia of
reliability.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-11816

Document: 00514232591

Page: 2

Date Filed: 11/09/2017

No. 16-11816
Worley asserts that his argument is foreclosed by this Circuit’s precedent
but seeks to preserve it for further possible review. See United States v. Alaniz,
726 F.3d 586, 619 (5th Cir. 2013). The Government has filed a motion for a
summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a merits
brief.
Summary affirmance is proper when, among other instances, “the
position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there
can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke
Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Although a district
court ordinarily may rely on the PSR if there is no rebuttal evidence, a
defendant may still argue that the PSR does not have sufficient indicia of
reliability because the findings are conclusional and rely on incorrect facts. See
United States v. Elwood, 999 F.2d 814, 817-18 (5th Cir. 1993). Because the
reliability of a PSR is thus dependent on the facts of the particular case,
summary affirmance is not an appropriate disposition.
Nevertheless, on the facts of this case, Worley’s arguments fail. The
defendant has the burden of presenting evidence to show that the facts
contained in the PSR are inaccurate or materially untrue. See Alaniz, 726 F.3d
at 619. Worley did not rebut the detailed findings in the PSR concerning the
estimate of the drug quantity attributed to him were not reliable or credible.
The district court’s factual findings were plausible in light of the record as a
whole and, thus, the findings were not clearly erroneous. Id. at 618.
Accordingly, the sentence is AFFIRMED, the Government’s motion for
summary affirmance is DENIED, and the Government’s alternative motion for
an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

2