IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10411
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RUDY VAN WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:96-CR-68-17-A
- - - - - - - - - -
February 3, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rudy Williams appeals from his resentencing on his
conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine
following the vacatur of his conviction for distribution of crack
cocaine and remand by this court in United States v. Freeman, 164
F.3d 243, 251 (5th Cir. 1999). He argues that the district court
erred by overruling his objection to the amount of drugs
attributed to his sentence by the revised PSR. Specifically, he
contends that portions of the PSR’s drug-quantity calculations
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-10411
-2-
were invalidated by this court’s vacatur of his distribution
conviction, are insufficiently reliable for sentencing purposes,
and were not sufficiently foreseeable to be attributed to his
sentence as relevant conduct. Factual findings made by a
sentencing court must be supported by a preponderance of the
evidence and are upheld unless clearly erroneous. See United
States v. McCaskey, 9 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 1993). The
sentencing court’s interpretations of the guidelines are reviewed
de novo. See id.
The PSR is generally considered reliable evidence for
sentencing purposes. See United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114,
120 (5th Cir. 1995). If the defendant fails to meet his burden
of rebutting the PSR’s findings by submitting relevant evidence
or affidavits, the district court is free to adopt the PSR’s
findings without further inquiry. See id. Because Williams
failed to present relevant evidence to rebut the revised PSR’s
drug-quantity calculations, the district court did not err by
adopting the revised PSR’s findings. In addition, to the extent
that Williams’ claims challenge the revised PSR’s findings that
were unaffected by this court’s holding in Freeman, they are
barred by the waiver and the law of the case doctrines. See
United States v. Castillo, 179 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 1999)(an
issue that could have been raised in an earlier appeal in the
case is waived); United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 752 (5th
Cir. 1998)(an issue of law or fact decided on appeal may not be
No. 99-10411
-3-
reexamined either by the district court on remand or by the
appellate court on a subsequent appeal unless (1) the evidence
involved was substantially different, (2) controlling authority
has since made a contrary decision regarding the issues involved,
or (3) the decision was clearly erroneous).
Williams has also filed a motion pursuant to FED. R. APP.
P. 28(i) to adopt any relevant arguments in any coappellant’s
brief. Because this court affirmed the convictions and sentences
of all of Williams’ codefendants in Freeman, Williams is the sole
appellant in the instant case. Accordingly, Williams’ motion is
DENIED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.