United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JORDAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
April 2017, the undersigned presided over a jury trial in
which the defendant was found guilty of both distributing
cocaine base and conspiring to distribute and possess with
the intent to distribute cocaine base. Sentencing is set for
August 17, 2017.
United States Probation Office has prepared and disclosed a
Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) [doc.
200] to which the defendant has raised twelve objections
[doc. 205]. In response, the probation office has disclosed
the PSR Addendum [doc. 215]. For the reasons that follow, the
defendant's objections will be overruled.
6 of the PSR introduces paragraphs 7 through 14 by stating,
“The following is a summary of the evidence presented
during the trial.” The defendant objects to these
paragraphs in their entirety. While admitting that this
“section of the PSR fairly reflects the trial
testimony, ” the defendant nonetheless objects because
he “maintains his innocence.”
court has reviewed paragraphs 7 through 14 and finds them to
be an accurate summary of the evidence. Because these
paragraphs are indeed a fair reflection of the trial proof
(as admitted by the defendant himself), the first objection
will be overruled.
paragraphs 14 and 20, the PSR holds the defendant accountable
for a total of 1.8 kilograms of cocaine base over the course
of the conspiracy. The defendant objects because “he
maintains his innocence.”
defendant does not challenge the manner in which the PSR
calculates the 1.8 kilogram quantity nor does he cite any
A district court may generally rely on the PSR's facts
unless the defendant produces evidence that contradicts the
PSR's findings. A defendant cannot show that a PSR is
inaccurate by simply denying the PSR's truth. . . . He
must produce more than a bare denial, or the judge may rely
entirely on the PSR.
United States v. House, No. 16-1691, 2017 WL
2569706, at *3 (6th Cir, June 14, 2017)
(citations, quotation, and alteration omitted). Not only has
the present defendant produced no more than a bare denial. He
has, as noted above, conceded that paragraph 14 of his PSR
“fairly reflects the trial testimony.” The
PSR's drug quantity finding is based on a conservative
summary of proof that this court heard and found credible.
The defendant's second objection will be overruled.
See Id. (The defendant “must produce more than
a bare denial[.]”).
paragraph 24, the PSR increases the defendant's offense
level by two pursuant to advisory United States Sentencing
Guideline (“U.S.S.G.”) § 3C1.2, which
provides for an enhancement, “If the defendant
recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious
bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing from
a law enforcement officer . . ..” The flight in
question must be conduct relevant to the offense of
conviction, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a), such as
“in the course of attempting to avoid detection or
responsibility for that offense.” U.S.S.G. §
11 and 12 of the PSR accurately note the testimony of
codefendants Charles Loftly and Heyward Dargan regarding the
defendant's high-speed flight from law enforcement that
took place on May 1, 2015. Both men testified that the
defendant told them he had thrown at least eight ounces of
cocaine out of his car ...