Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0203-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ismael ESPARZA, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-41476 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed June 2, 2017
    Jimmy Eric Pardue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Plaintiff-Appellee
    Kimberly S. Keller, Keller Stolarczyk P.L.L.C., Boerne, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ismael Esparza appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to transport unlawful aliens within the United States. He renews his preserved challenge to the district court’s application of a two-level adjustment to his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c) for his role as “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” in the offense. “Whether a defendant exercised an aggravating role as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor ... is a finding of fact reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d 260, 265 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the entire record.” United States v. Perez, 217 F.3d 323, 331 (5th Cir. 2000).

The presentence investigation report (PSR), which Esparza failed to rebut, establishes that he was identified as the leader of the alien-smuggling organization by Jose Maria Lozano, a co-conspirator. The PSR recited details corroborative of Es-parza’s management or supervision of Lo-zano, including directing Lozano to take responsibility for a fatal car accident and to conceal Esparza’s involvement. We are not persuaded by Esparza’s contention that the facts in the PSR were too conclu-sory to support the offense-level adjustment or that the district court’s finding was implausible in light of the entire record. Perez, 217 F.3d at 331. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by applying the § 3Bl.l(c) adjustment. See Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d at 265.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.