Case ID: f-appx_326/html/0307-01.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. Rumaldo GALINDO-ARAUJO; Clemente Cayetano Aragon-Tarango, Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 08-50740, 08-50827
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 4, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rachel Stevens, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before SMITH, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rumaldo Galindo-Araujo and Clemente Aragon-Tarango appeal the sentences imposed following their guilty plea convictions of aiding and abetting possession with the intent to distribute marihuana. They argue that the district court erred in calculating their base offense levels because the court considered the methamphetamine found in one of the five backpacks seized by Border Patrol agents. They contend that they had no knowledge of the methamphetamine and no intent to possess it, so they cannot be held responsible for it.

A defendant’s knowledge of the type of drug he is carrying is not necessary for the drug to be used in the calculation of his sentence. United States v. ValenciaGonzales, 172 F.3d 344, 345-46 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir.2003). It is undisputed that defendants were found with three other persons, all of whom were responsible for the five backpacks containing marihuana and methamphetamine. Therefore, consideration of the methamphetamine in calculating the base offense levels was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.