Case ID: f-appx_97/html/0487-01.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. Fernando GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-20662
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 20, 2004.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Kathlyn Giannaula Snyder, Assistant US Attorney, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Omar F. Guerra Johansson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Fernando Garza appeals his sentence for harboring illegal aliens and aiding and abetting in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(A)(l)(a)(III), 1324(A)(l)(b)(I), 1324(A)(l)(a)(V)(ii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Garza asserts that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines §§ 2Ll.l(b)(5) (creating substantial risk of death on serous bodily injury) and 3C1.1 (obstruction of justice).

This court reviews the application of the Guidelines de novo and reviews the factual findings by the district court for clear error. United States v. Garcia-Guerrero, 313 F.3d 892, 895 (5th Cir.2002). A sentence will be upheld, “unless it was imposed in violation of law or as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines or it is outside the range of the applicable guideline and is unreasonable”. Id.

The district court did not clearly err in enhancing Garza’s offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2Ll.l(b)(5) and 3C1.1. See United States v. Cuyler, 298 F.3d 387, 388 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. O’Callaghan, 106 F.3d 1221, 1223 (5th Cir.1997).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.