Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40670/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40670-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ivan Paredes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40670

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

IVAN PAREDES,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-1857

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ivan Paredes challenges his 60-month prison sentence, imposed 

following his guilty-plea conviction for possession, with intent to distribute,

more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 

and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He contends the district court erred by applying two, twolevel enhancements, pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines §§ 2D1.1(b)(1) 

(increase two levels for possession of a dangerous weapon in connection with 

* 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

March 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40670 Document: 00512953548 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2015
No. 14-40670

the drug offense), and 2D1.1(b)(12) (increase two levels for maintaining the 

premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing drugs). 

Although post-Booker, the Sentencing 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 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. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Although this court reviews the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines 

de novo, its deciding a § 2D1.1 enhancement applies is reviewed only for clear 

error. E.g., United States v. Akins, 746 F.3d 590, 610 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 

135 S. Ct. 707 (2014); United States v. Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir. 

2010). 

Paredes claims his use of the premises to manufacture and distribute 

cocaine was incidental or collateral to its use as a residence. He asserts, inter 

alia, the storage of the cocaine in an unsecure location (the residence’s garage), 

and his family’s non-involvement with the cocaine support this contention. 

There was no clear error in applying the enhancement; that Paredes knowingly 

maintained a residence primarily for the purpose of storing a controlled 

substance for later distribution is not “unreasonable or implausible in light of 

the record as a whole”. United States v. Ramos, 509 F. App’x 317, 318 (5th Cir. 

2013); accord U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.17.

Regarding the dangerous-weapon enhancement under Guideline 

§ 2D1.1(b)(1), Paredes claims he possessed the weapon for home-protection 

2

Case: 14-40670 Document: 00512953548 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2015
No. 14-40670

purposes. In support, he notes the weapon was stored in the bedroom, roughly 

30–40 feet from the garage where the drugs were stored. Nevertheless, a

connection between the firearm discovered in the residence and Paredes’ drugrelated offense was not “clearly improbable.” United States v. Rodriguez, 62 

F.3d 723, 724 (5th Cir. 1995); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.11(A); see also, e.g.,

Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d at 765–66. Further, Paredes’ assertion is a

challenge to the court’s credibility determination, which is “peculiarly within 

the province” of the district court and will not be disturbed by this court. 

United States v. Goncalves, 613 F.3d 601, 609 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 14-40670 Document: 00512953548 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2015