Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-11067/USCOURTS-ca5-03-11067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denise Michelle Contreras
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

April 16, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-11067

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DENISE MICHELLE CONTRERAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:03-CR-47-5

--------------------

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Denise Michelle Contreras appeals the 188-month sentence

imposed following her guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting. 21

U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 2.

Contreras argues the district court erred by enhancing her

offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) based on a finding

that she was a manager or supervisor of criminal activity

 Case: 03-11067 Document: 0051109066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2004
No. 03-11067

-2-

involving five or more participants. Reliable information

contained in the PSR and introduced at sentencing showed that

Contreras supplied cellular telephones to other members of the

operation, she equipped others with materials necessary to the

furtherance of the drug operation, she directed others to

complete financial transactions for the drug operation, she set

prices and controlled the delivery of the methamphetamine, and

she paid her brother a flat fee for drug deliveries that he made

while she herself was paid in pounds of methamphetamine. 

The district court did not clearly err in finding that

Contreras had a supervisory or managerial role in the drug

operation. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.4); United States

v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 329 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v.

Manthei, 913 F.2d 1130, 1135 (5th Cir. 1990). Nor did the

district court err in applying the preponderance-of-the-evidence

standard to a disputed sentencing issue. See United States v.

Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1240 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 03-11067 Document: 0051109066 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2004