Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10635/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10635-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benito Chavira
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10635

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BENITO CHAVIRA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-19

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Benito Chavira appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea 

conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He 

argues that the district court erred in relying on the confidential source’s drug 

quantity information in the Presentence Report because there was no 

corroborating evidence to support it.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10635 Document: 00513499849 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2016
No. 15-10635

2

Because he did not challenge the reliability of the confidential source in 

the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To prevail on plain 

error review, Chavira must identify (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or 

obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he satisfies these three requirements, this court 

may, in its discretion, remedy the error if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, 

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

The amount of methamphetamine attributable to Chavira is a finding of 

fact. See United States v. Harris, 740 F.3d 956, 966 (5th Cir. 2014). “Questions 

of fact capable of resolution by the district court upon proper objection at 

sentencing can never constitute plain error.” United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 

47, 50 (5th Cir. 1991). As such, the district court’s finding of the applicable 

drug quantity cannot constitute plain error. See id.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10635 Document: 00513499849 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2016