United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
November 15, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-11050
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-
Appellee,
versus
DAVID WATKINS also known as DAVID MICHAEL WATKINS,
Defendant-
Appellant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-37-ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Watkins pleaded guiltypursuant to a written plea agreement to managing or controlling
a drug-involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 and was sentenced to a 135-month term of
imprisonment. Watkins argues that 1) the district court erred in determining the quantity of drugs
attributable to him for sentencing purposes, 2) his sentence is unreasonable, and
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
3) decisions of this court following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), have rendered the
Sentencing Guidelines “constructively mandatory.”
We review Watkins’s challenge to the drug quantity attributable to him for sentencing
purposes for plain error. See United States v. Alvarado-Santilano, 434 F.3d 794, 795 (5th Cir.
2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1812 (2006). Because Watkins did not offer any evidence to show
that the Presentence Report (PSR) was unreliable or that its factual findings were untrue, the district
court did not commit error, plain or otherwise, by accepting the PSR’s drug quantity determination.
See United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 248 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. De
Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d 154, 164 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1020 (2006). Watkins’s
sentence, at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range, is presumed reasonable, and Watkins has
not rebutted that presumption. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006).
Watkins’s argument that decisions of this court, including United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d
511 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005), and Alonzo, rendered the Guidelines constructively
mandatory is unconvincing. Moreover, a panel of this court may not overrule another panel’s
decision without en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary Supreme Court decision. See
United States v. Ruff, 984 F.2d 635, 640 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.