United States v. Hardee

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 9, 2021
• Docket: 20-50480
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-50480 Document: 00515739250 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 20-50480 February 9, 2021 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jesse Ray Hardee,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:19-CR-265-1

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jesse Ray Hardee appeals his 365-month, within-guidelines sentence for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. He contends that the district court miscalculated the quantity of drugs for which he was responsible in determining his guidelines

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-50480 Document: 00515739250 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2021

No. 20-50480

range. We review the district court’s drug-quantity calculation for clear error. See United States v. Eustice, 952 F.3d 686, 690 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 433 (2020). Although Hardee contends that the calculation was undermined by the testimony of his mother at sentencing, the district court found that she lacked credibility, and we will not disturb that determination. See United States v. Goncalves, 613 F.3d 601, 609 (5th Cir. 2010). Hardee’s bald contention that the district court improperly relied upon the presentence report lacks merit. See Eustice, 952 F.3d at 691. Finally, because Hardee challenges his guidelines range, not a mandatory minimum sentence, his reliance upon United States v. Haines, 803 F.3d 713, 740 (5th Cir. 2015), is misplaced. See United States v. Bowen, 818 F.3d 179, 192 n.8 (5th Cir. 2016). Hardee fails to show any, much less clear, error. See Eustice, 952 F.3d at 690- 91. AFFIRMED.