United States v. Mitchan

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10241
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Michael Ryan Mitchan,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CR-70-2

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Michael Ryan Mitchan pleaded guilty to possession with intent to
distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). He was sentenced to 192 months’

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-10241 Document: 00515668939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2020

No. 20-10241
2
imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. On appeal, he challenges
the district court’s calculation of the drug quantity attributable to him.
1

Drug quantity is a factual finding that we review for clear error. See
United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005). A district court
may adopt the facts from a presentence report (PSR) “without further
inquiry if those facts have an adequate evidentiary basis with sufficient indicia
of reliability and the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence.” United
States v. Dinh, 920 F.3d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). “The
standard for reliability is not meant to be onerous; indeed, even
uncorroborated hearsay can support a relevant conduct finding.” United
States v. Barfield, 941 F.3d 757, 762 (5th Cir. 2019). And the district court can
consider the statements of coconspirators even if they “are somewhat
imprecise” when calculating drug quantity. United States v. Kearby, 943 F.3d
969, 974 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Mitchan first argues that the district court erred by including 6 pounds
of methamphetamine in the calculation based on a statement that one of his
codefendants, Kenneth Robert Smith, made to law enforcement.
Specifically, Smith said that Mitchan once sold 6 pounds of
methamphetamine to Francis Leo Stadler, Jr., another codefendant in the
case. Mitchan argues that Smith’s statement lacked enough detail to be
considered reliable and that it was refuted by other evidence. But Mitchan
fails to show that Smith’s statement was implausible in light of the whole
record. See id. at 975. Smith worked as Mitchan and Stadler’s driver, and
could reasonably be presumed to have knowledge of their transactions.
Further, multiple sources indicated that Mitchan was a high-volume drug

1
Mitchan also contends that he should have been allowed to confront witnesses at
sentencing, but he concedes that this argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Mitchell,
484 F.3d 762, 776 (5th Cir. 2007). He seeks only to preserve the issue for further review.
Case: 20-10241 Document: 00515668939 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2020

No. 20-10241
3
dealer. Mitchan’s girlfriend revealed that he obtained gallon-sized bags of
methamphetamine from a source in Austin a few times a week. Mitchan
himself told law enforcement that he supplied Stadler with $1,000 quantities
of methamphetamine at a time, that he had traveled to Forth Worth to
purchase methamphetamine, and that he was set to obtain several more
pounds from a new source in Houston. This lends credence to Smith’s
statement that Mitchan sold 6 pounds at once.
Mitchan’s so-called rebuttal evidence is unpersuasive. He contends
that Smith’s statement was contradicted by Stadler, who told law
enforcement that the most methamphetamine he ever received from a
supplier was only half a pound. However, Stadler’s statement was made
several months before Smith’s, so it is plausible that Stadler subsequently
increased the amount of methamphetamine he purchased at a time.
Mitchan also argues that the district court erred by including 4.5
pounds of methamphetamine in the calculation based on Stadler’s post-
arrest statement that in just one month he bought $20,000 to $25,000 worth
of methamphetamine from Mitchan at $300 to $325 per ounce. The PSR
estimated that the transactions involved 4.5 pounds of methamphetamine.
Mitchan concedes that drug quantity may be extrapolated. See Dinh, 920
F.3d at 313. But he argues that Stadler’s statement is unreliable. Stadler
provided specific enough dollar amounts to support the PSR’s estimate. And,
based on the record evidence that Mitchan was dealing in large quantities,
those dollar amounts and the resulting 4.5-pound estimate are plausible.
Accordingly, Mitchan has not demonstrated clear error with respect
to either the 6 pounds of methamphetamine attributed to him based on
Smith’s statement or the 4.5 pounds based on Stadler’s statement. See
Betancourt, 422 F.3d at 246.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 20-10241 Document: 00515668939 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/10/2020