Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40247/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40247-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leoncio De La Paz-Brito
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40247

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

LEONCIO DE LA PAZ-BRITO,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-244-1

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leoncio De La Paz-Brito challenges: the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting his conviction for conspiring to possess, with intent to distribute,

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) (criminalizing the 

manufacture and sale of, inter alia, methamphetamine) and 846 (conspiracy 

provision); and the imposition of a two-level enhancement, pursuant to 

* 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

December 31, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40247 Document: 00512887142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/31/2014
No. 14-40247

Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(1), for possessing a firearm in connection with 

the underlying offense. 

For properly preserved sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims, as in this 

instance, the evidence is viewed “in the light most favorable to the jury 

verdict”, and we “must affirm if a rational trier of fact could have found that 

the evidence established the essential elements of the offense beyond a 

reasonable doubt”. E.g., United States v. Winkler, 639 F.3d 692, 696 (5th Cir. 

2011) (citation omitted). “All credibility determinations and reasonable 

inferences from the evidence are to be resolved in favor of the jury verdict.” Id.

(citation omitted). 

“To prove conspiracy to possess and distribute a controlled substance, 

the government must show beyond a reasonable doubt (1) the existence of an 

agreement between two or more persons to violate narcotics laws; (2) the 

defendant’s knowledge of the agreement; and (3) his voluntary participation in 

the conspiracy.” United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 256–57 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Uncorroborated testimony of a convicted co-conspirator is sufficient to support 

a conspiracy conviction unless the testimony is incredible as a matter of law. 

Id. at 257. De La Paz has not shown the evidence at his trial, which includes, 

inter alia, testimony from his co-conspirators and law-enforcement officers 

strongly establishing his participation in the conspiracy at issue, is insufficient 

to support his conviction. See, e.g., Winkler, 639 F.3d at 696; Valdez, 453 F.3d 

at 256–57. 

Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly 

preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly 

calculate the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range for use in deciding on the 

sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In that 

2

 Case: 14-40247 Document: 00512887142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/31/2014
No. 14-40247

respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines 

is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States 

v. Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir. 2010).

To support a § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement, the Government is required to 

establish by a preponderance of the evidence a “temporal and spatial 

relationship [between] the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the 

defendant”. Id. If the Government makes the required showing, the burden 

shifts to the defendant “to show that it was clearly improbable that the weapon

was connected with the offense”. United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 396 (5th 

Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.11(A). 

The Government provided evidence that the firearm at issue was found 

inside the apartment where De La Paz was conducting drug-trafficking activity 

and was readily accessible. De La Paz fails to show the court erred by imposing 

the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement or clearly erred in its factual findings. E.g.,

Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d at 390. 

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-40247 Document: 00512887142 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/31/2014