USA v. Robert Boyd, No. 11-50647 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-50645 c/w No. 11-50647 Summary Calendar June 26, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBERT SHAWN BOYD, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 6:11-CR-2-1 & 6:11-CR-3-1 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert Shawn Boyd pleaded guilty to conspiring to operate a chop shop and aiding and abetting the alteration of a motor vehicle identification number and was sentenced to concurrent 27-month terms of imprisonment. He argues on appeal that the district court clearly erred in determining the amount of loss on which it based his sentence. He suggests that he is responsible only for items that he personally stole and that he could not reasonably foresee that other * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 11-50645 c/w No. 11-50647 items that passed through the chop shop were in fact stolen by his coconspirators. We review for clear error the sentencing court s factual determination of relevant conduct. United States v. Ekanem, 555 F.3d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court may properly consider acts beyond the individual defendant s criminal activity so long as those acts were in furtherance of the same course or conduct or common scheme or plan as the conspiracy. United States v. Longstreet, 603 F.3d 273, 278 (5th Cir. 2010). In this case, Boyd offered no evidence to rebut the probation officer s report that the conspiracy involved specific stolen motorcycles and motorcycle parts and accessories valued at $47,135. His mere objection to the amount of loss failed to meet his burden of establishing that the sentencing evidence was unreliable or that his coconspirators acts in this case were not reasonably foreseeable to him. United States v. Ford, 558 F.3d 371, 377 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 329 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Patterson, 962 F.2d 409, 414 (5th Cir. 1992). 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.
