United States v. Dusty Loughridge

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 29, 2018
• Docket: 17-30903
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 17-30903 Document: 00514701858 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2018

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

FILED No. 17-30903 October 29, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DUSTY EUGENE LOUGHRIDGE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:17-CR-24-2

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Dusty Eugene Loughridge appeals the 235-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. He asserts that the district court clearly erred in applying a two-point enhancement to his sentence for his role in the offense. Section 3B1.1(c) provides for a two-level enhancement if the defendant is an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of criminal activity. U.S.S.G.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-30903 Document: 00514701858 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2018

No. 17-30903

§ 3B1.1(c). The commentary provides that a defendant qualifies for a § 3B1.1 enhancement if he was “the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants.” § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2). A district court’s finding regarding a defendant’s role in an offense is reviewed for clear error, United States v. Rose, 449 F.3d 627, 633 (5th Cir. 2006), and the factual finding that a defendant is a leader or organizer need only be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, United States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929, 944 (5th Cir. 1994). Contrary to Loughridge’s argument, the district court did not clearly err in finding that he exercised a supervisor role in the drug conspiracy. When the evidence demonstrates that a defendant directed another in his drug trafficking activities, a sentence enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) is appropriate. See United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 725 (5th Cir. 2003). The evidence in the record indicates that Loughridge, at the very least, exercised control over Cody James Bradberry by directing Bradberry to collect drug debts on his behalf. See Turner, 319 F.3d at 725. Accordingly, the district court’s finding that Loughridge exercised a supervisor role in the drug conspiracy is “plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Rose, 449 F.3d at 633. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.