USA v. Raul Rangel, No. 16-11686 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-11686 Document: 00514255222 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-11686 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 30, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAUL RANGEL, also known as J. R., Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-132-11 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Raul Rangel appeals the 365-month sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He argues that the district court erred in attributing five kilograms of methamphetamine to him for sentencing purposes. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-11686 Document: 00514255222 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2017 No. 16-11686 The PSR initially attributed a much larger quantity of methamphetamine to Rangel, but, at sentencing, the district court sustained his objection in part and attributed only five kilograms of methamphetamine to him. Rangel’s failure to object to this lesser drug quantity or the resulting sentence results in plain error review. See United States v. Fierro, 38 F.3d 761, 773 n.4 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s determination of drug quantity is a factual question. United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court did not err in relying on the PSR, which was based on investigative reports and interviews of Rangel’s co-defendants, or speculate as to the amount of methamphetamine attributable to Rangel. Therefore, the district court’s finding of the applicable drug quantity in this case was not plain error. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.