Appellate Case: 25-7025 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 29, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 25-7025 (D.C. No. 6:24-CR-00121-RAW-1) JERRY LANA FREEMAN, a/k/a (E.D. Okla.) Lil’ Jerry,
Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before MATHESON, MORITZ, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Jerry Lana Freeman pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court
sentenced him to 224 months in prison. Mr. Freeman appeals his sentence.
He argues the district court clearly erred by relying on co-conspirator statements to
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-7025 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 2
calculate the drug quantity attributable to him under the United States Sentencing
Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.” or “Guidelines”). Exercising jurisdiction under
18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual History
On December 29, 2023, the Durant Police Department arranged a controlled
purchase of methamphetamine through a confidential informant (“CI”) at
Mr. Freeman’s residence in Hugo, Oklahoma. Mr. Freeman and the leader of a drug
trafficking organization (“DTO”) were present. During the transaction, another
individual, Supplier One, 1 arrived at the residence with the methamphetamine.
The CI purchased 813.8 grams. During the ensuing investigation, law enforcement
obtained statements about Mr. Freeman’s involvement in methamphetamine
distribution from Supplier One, the DTO’s leader, and Mr. Freeman himself.
B. Procedural History
On August 14, 2024, a grand jury indicted Mr. Freeman on one count of
conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine between
June 16, 2023, and July 17, 2024. He pled guilty without a plea agreement.
The U.S. Probation Office prepared a Presentence Report (“PSR”). The PSR
described the offense conduct through statements from Supplier One, Mr. Freeman,
1 The Government’s brief refers to this individual as “Supplier One.” Aplee. Resp. Br. at 4. So do we.
2 Appellate Case: 25-7025 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 3
and the DTO’s leader. According to the PSR, Supplier One told law enforcement
that he estimated “he sold the defendant one kilogram of methamphetamine for
$3,500 per week for approximately two months between 2023 until his arrest in
2024.” R. vol. II at 52. 2 The Probation Office characterized the resulting figure—
eight kilograms—as “the conservative estimate of methamphetamine the defendant
received from” Supplier One. Id.
The PSR also described Mr. Freeman’s statements to law enforcement,
including his admission to purchasing one kilogram of methamphetamine from
Supplier One, acting as a broker for Supplier One’s other deals, and receiving three
to four kilograms of methamphetamine from a second supplier. 3 The PSR further
noted the DTO leader told law enforcement Mr. Freeman sold controlled substances
and usually dealt in kilogram quantities.
The PSR set Mr. Freeman’s base offense level at 36 based on a total drug
weight of eight kilograms of methamphetamine (mixture) and 813.8 grams of
2 Material quoted from the PSR also appears in Mr. Freeman’s publicly filed brief. See United States v. Hardy, 149 F.4th 1153, 1166 n.6 (10th Cir. 2025). 3 Mr. Freeman later recanted portions of his first interview, claiming he received marijuana only from Supplier One. He did not retract his statement regarding the second supplier.
3 Appellate Case: 25-7025 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 4
methamphetamine from the controlled buy. Combined with a criminal history
category of VI and other adjustments, the Guidelines range was 292 to 365 months. 4
Mr. Freeman filed written objections to the PSR. Relevant here, he raised
seven challenges to the PSR’s description of the offense conduct, arguing that
statements attributed to Supplier One, the DTO leader, and himself were inaccurate
or conflicting. He also disputed the drug quantity calculation, contending the
co-conspirators’ statements were unreliable and the resulting eight-kilogram estimate
was inflated.
At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Freeman withdrew all seven of his objections to
the offense conduct but maintained his objections to the quantity calculation.
He argued that the only drug quantity the Government could “concretely put in [his]
hands” was the 813.8 grams from the controlled buy. R. vol. III at 33.
The district court overruled the objections. Relying on “the evidence in this
case, which includes the admissions of [Supplier One] as well as the Defendant and
others regarding the large quantities of methamphetamine being distributed by this
drug trafficking organization,” the court found by a preponderance of the evidence
that the eight kilograms was attributable to Mr. Freeman. Id. The court reasoned the
813.8 grams from the controlled buy “corroborates that the Defendant was receiving
kilogram quantities of methamphetamine from [Supplier One]” and that “there is no
4 Without the additional eight kilograms of methamphetamine (mixture), Mr. Freeman’s base offense level would be 34, resulting in a Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months.
4 Appellate Case: 25-7025 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 5
evidence that [Supplier One] was untruthful during his interview with law
enforcement.” Id. at 33–34.
The district court granted a downward variance and sentenced Mr. Freeman to
224 months in prison. Mr. Freeman timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Background
Mr. Freeman argues the district court clearly erred in calculating the drug
quantity attributable to him. We review a district court’s factual findings of drug
quantities attributable to a defendant for clear error. United States v. Ortiz, 993 F.2d
204, 207 (10th Cir. 1993). “Drug quantities used to calculate the Guidelines range
are clearly erroneous when they lack factual support in the record or we are left with
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 25-7025 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 29, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 25-7025 (D.C. No. 6:24-CR-00121-RAW-1) JERRY LANA FREEMAN, a/k/a (E.D. Okla.) Lil’ Jerry,
Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before MATHESON, MORITZ, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Jerry Lana Freeman pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court
sentenced him to 224 months in prison. Mr. Freeman appeals his sentence.
He argues the district court clearly erred by relying on co-conspirator statements to
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-7025 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 2
calculate the drug quantity attributable to him under the United States Sentencing
Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.” or “Guidelines”). Exercising jurisdiction under
18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual History
On December 29, 2023, the Durant Police Department arranged a controlled
purchase of methamphetamine through a confidential informant (“CI”) at
Mr. Freeman’s residence in Hugo, Oklahoma. Mr. Freeman and the leader of a drug
trafficking organization (“DTO”) were present. During the transaction, another
individual, Supplier One, 1 arrived at the residence with the methamphetamine.
The CI purchased 813.8 grams. During the ensuing investigation, law enforcement
obtained statements about Mr. Freeman’s involvement in methamphetamine
distribution from Supplier One, the DTO’s leader, and Mr. Freeman himself.
B. Procedural History
On August 14, 2024, a grand jury indicted Mr. Freeman on one count of
conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine between
June 16, 2023, and July 17, 2024. He pled guilty without a plea agreement.
The U.S. Probation Office prepared a Presentence Report (“PSR”). The PSR
described the offense conduct through statements from Supplier One, Mr. Freeman,
1 The Government’s brief refers to this individual as “Supplier One.” Aplee. Resp. Br. at 4. So do we.
2 Appellate Case: 25-7025 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 3
and the DTO’s leader. According to the PSR, Supplier One told law enforcement
that he estimated “he sold the defendant one kilogram of methamphetamine for
$3,500 per week for approximately two months between 2023 until his arrest in
2024.” R. vol. II at 52. 2 The Probation Office characterized the resulting figure—
eight kilograms—as “the conservative estimate of methamphetamine the defendant
received from” Supplier One. Id.
The PSR also described Mr. Freeman’s statements to law enforcement,
including his admission to purchasing one kilogram of methamphetamine from
Supplier One, acting as a broker for Supplier One’s other deals, and receiving three
to four kilograms of methamphetamine from a second supplier. 3 The PSR further
noted the DTO leader told law enforcement Mr. Freeman sold controlled substances
and usually dealt in kilogram quantities.
The PSR set Mr. Freeman’s base offense level at 36 based on a total drug
weight of eight kilograms of methamphetamine (mixture) and 813.8 grams of
2 Material quoted from the PSR also appears in Mr. Freeman’s publicly filed brief. See United States v. Hardy, 149 F.4th 1153, 1166 n.6 (10th Cir. 2025). 3 Mr. Freeman later recanted portions of his first interview, claiming he received marijuana only from Supplier One. He did not retract his statement regarding the second supplier.
3 Appellate Case: 25-7025 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 4
methamphetamine from the controlled buy. Combined with a criminal history
category of VI and other adjustments, the Guidelines range was 292 to 365 months. 4
Mr. Freeman filed written objections to the PSR. Relevant here, he raised
seven challenges to the PSR’s description of the offense conduct, arguing that
statements attributed to Supplier One, the DTO leader, and himself were inaccurate
or conflicting. He also disputed the drug quantity calculation, contending the
co-conspirators’ statements were unreliable and the resulting eight-kilogram estimate
was inflated.
At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Freeman withdrew all seven of his objections to
the offense conduct but maintained his objections to the quantity calculation.
He argued that the only drug quantity the Government could “concretely put in [his]
hands” was the 813.8 grams from the controlled buy. R. vol. III at 33.
The district court overruled the objections. Relying on “the evidence in this
case, which includes the admissions of [Supplier One] as well as the Defendant and
others regarding the large quantities of methamphetamine being distributed by this
drug trafficking organization,” the court found by a preponderance of the evidence
that the eight kilograms was attributable to Mr. Freeman. Id. The court reasoned the
813.8 grams from the controlled buy “corroborates that the Defendant was receiving
kilogram quantities of methamphetamine from [Supplier One]” and that “there is no
4 Without the additional eight kilograms of methamphetamine (mixture), Mr. Freeman’s base offense level would be 34, resulting in a Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months.
4 Appellate Case: 25-7025 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 5
evidence that [Supplier One] was untruthful during his interview with law
enforcement.” Id. at 33–34.
The district court granted a downward variance and sentenced Mr. Freeman to
224 months in prison. Mr. Freeman timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Background
Mr. Freeman argues the district court clearly erred in calculating the drug
quantity attributable to him. We review a district court’s factual findings of drug
quantities attributable to a defendant for clear error. United States v. Ortiz, 993 F.2d
204, 207 (10th Cir. 1993). “Drug quantities used to calculate the Guidelines range
are clearly erroneous when they lack factual support in the record or we are left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” United States v.
Hardy, 149 F.4th 1153, 1164 (10th Cir. 2025) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because Mr. Freeman pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more
of methamphetamine, the amount of drugs attributable to him determines his base
offense level. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2023). The government
bears the burden of proving drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence,
Ortiz, 993 F.2d at 207, and it is not limited to evidence of the amounts of drugs
actually seized. The Guidelines explain that “the defendant is accountable . . . for all
quantities of contraband with which he was directly involved.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3,
cmt. n.3(D).
5 Appellate Case: 25-7025 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 6
The district court may therefore “rely upon an estimate to establish the
defendant’s guideline offense level so long as the information relied upon has some
basis of support in the facts of the particular case and bears sufficient indicia of
reliability.” United States v. Dalton, 409 F.3d 1247, 1251 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal
quotation marks omitted). In making this estimate, the court may consider “similar
transactions in controlled substances by the defendant.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.5.
And when a defendant does not dispute the facts in the PSR, the district court
may also rely on those facts in determining the drug quantity attributable to the
defendant. United States v. McDonald, 43 F.4th 1090, 1095–96 (10th Cir. 2022);
see Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A).
B. Analysis
Mr. Freeman contends the district court clearly erred in finding him
responsible for eight kilograms of methamphetamine because the estimate rested on
“unreliable statements from one informant,” Supplier One. Aplt. Opening Br. at 1, 8
(boldface omitted). We disagree. 5
The district court assessed the reliability of the estimate and found the record
supported it. Mr. Freeman withdrew all seven of his objections to the offense
5 Mr. Freeman’s opening brief characterizes Supplier One’s statements as “out of court hearsay.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 10. His reply brief disclaims any hearsay challenge. Reply Br. at 3 n.1 (“Appellant does not argue procedural reasonableness regarding improper hearsay at sentencing.”). To the extent the hearsay nature of Supplier One’s statements informs Mr. Freeman’s clear-error challenge, we reject that argument for the same reasons stated in our analysis.
6 Appellate Case: 25-7025 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 7
conduct, leaving the facts in that section of the PSR undisputed. See McDonald,
43 F.4th at 1095–96. The court considered those undisputed facts—including
Mr. Freeman’s own admissions, statements from the DTO’s leader, and the 813.8
grams from the controlled buy. See R. vol. III at 33.
Unlike in United States v. Hardy and United States v. Cripps, relied on by
Mr. Freeman, the record here does not undermine Supplier One’s account.
See Hardy, 149 F.4th at 1167 (vacating the sentence where the record contradicted
the informant’s drug quantity estimate); United States v. Cripps, No. 24-7014, 2025
WL 1444187, at *3–4 (10th Cir. 2025) (unpublished) (vacating sentence where
sources gave inconsistent accounts of the defendant’s scale of dealing). The drug
quantity estimate is therefore neither implausible nor impermissible on the record
before us, and we thus discern no clear error. United States v. Craine, 995 F.3d
1139, 1157 (10th Cir. 2021).
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm Mr. Freeman’s sentence.
Entered for the Court
Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge