United States v. Ronelle Oudems

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · November 20, 2019 · No. No. 19-10127

Summary

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Oudems’s sentence, holding that the district court did not clearly err in relying on confidential informant statements to calculate drug quantity for sentencing, even where the informants were not disclosed and their assertions were largely uncorroborated, because the statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability under U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a). The court further held that any error in failing to sua sponte disclose the informants’ identities was not plain error where Oudems knew the informants, and his Sixth Amendment confrontation claim was foreclosed by circuit precedent.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Writing for the Court
KING; GRAVES; WILLETT
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
November 20, 2019
Docket number
No. 19-10127
Procedural posture
Appeal from sentence after guilty plea.
Standard of review
Clear error for drug quantity findings; plain error for disclosure claim.
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
Ronelle Lamar Oudems v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal proceduresentencingstandard of reviewsixth amendmentevidence

Practice areas

Criminal LawSentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that the drug quantity reported by CI-3 and CI-7 was sufficiently reliable.
  2. Whether the district court plainly erred by not requiring disclosure of the CIs' identities.
  3. Whether the Sixth Amendment requires the right to confront CIs at sentencing.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not clearly err because Oudems failed to carry his burden of showing that the evidence was materially untrue.
  2. There was no plain error because Oudems failed to show a clear or obvious error; the district court had evidence that Oudems knew the CIs.
  3. The claim is foreclosed by United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006).

Key quotations

Under the clearly erroneous standard, if the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. (at 2)
The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that information the district court relied on in sentencing is materially untrue. (at 3)

Factual background

Oudems pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 28 to 280 grams of cocaine base. The PSR calculated a converted drug weight of 117,404.64 kg based on information from seven confidential informants about his history of trafficking. The district court accepted the PSR over Oudems's objections and sentenced him to 210 months. Oudems specifically challenges the reliability of CI-3 and CI-7, whose information accounted for over 105,000 kg of CDW.

Procedural history

Ronelle Oudems pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. The district court overruled his objections to the PSR's drug quantity calculation and sentenced him to 210 months. Oudems appeals, challenging the reliability of confidential informants used to calculate drug quantity.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…