Case ID: f-appx_288/html/0985-01.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. German ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-50523
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 19, 2008.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Terrence W. McDonald, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

German Estrada appeals his 108-month sentence following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. He argues that the district court clearly erred in determining the drug quantity attributed to him for sentencing purposes. Estrada contends that the district court erred in its conversion of the 223.3 grams of methamphetamine at 60% purity to the 133.92 grams of “methamphetamine (actual).” According to Estrada, his base offense level should have been a level 28, using only the 223.3 grams of methamphetamine because there was no evidence that he knew the purity of the methamphetamine

Estrada stipulated in his plea agreement that the offense involved a net weight of 223.2 grams, with a purity of 60%, resulting in 133.92 grams of “methamphetamine (actual).” Thus, the district court’s finding as to the purity of the methamphetamine and its drug quantity determination as to “methamphetamine (actual)” under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(e)(4) was not clearly erroneous and was plausible in light of the record as a whole. See United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court lias determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.