Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41358/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41358-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Alonzo Ibarra-Rodriguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41358

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ALONZO IBARRA-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-1646-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Alonzo Ibarra-Rodriguez appeals his guilty plea conviction and 

sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or 

more of marijuana. Ibarra-Rodriguez’s valid and unconditional guilty plea 

waived the non-jurisdictional constitutional challenges he raises regarding his 

conviction. See United States v. Scruggs, 714 F.3d 258, 261-62 (5th Cir. 2013).

 

* 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 24, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41358 Document: 00513438486 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2016
No. 14-41358

2

We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines

de novo and the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. See United States 

v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). A factual finding is 

not clearly erroneous and should be upheld as long as it is plausible in light of 

the record as a whole. Id.

Ibarra-Rodriguez challenges the district court’s factual finding that a 

2011 load of marijuana delivered to Chicago constituted relevant conduct for 

purposes of calculating his offense level. See United States v. Ekanem, 555 

F.3d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 2009). In light of the unrebutted evidence in the 

presentence report concerning the similarities in the offenses and IbarraRodriguez’s involvement in those offenses, the district court’s finding that the 

Chicago load was part of the same course of conduct or part of a common 

scheme or plan as the instant offense was plausible in light of the record as a 

whole. See United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 619 (5th Cir. 2013); United 

States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878, 885-88 (5th Cir. 2009); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. As 

such, the district court did not clearly err in using the marijuana involved in 

the Chicago offense to calculate Ibarra-Rodriguez’s offense level. See CisnerosGutierrez, 517 F.3d at 764.

The district court’s finding that Ibarra-Rodriguez was a leader or 

organizer of the offense is also a factual finding reviewed for clear error. See 

United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 204 (5th Cir. 2005). The unrebutted 

evidence in the presentence report established that Ibarra-Rodriguez 

coordinated a marijuana transporting operation and exercised decisionmaking authority by recruiting, directing, and paying his coconspirators, in a 

conspiracy that involved more than five people. See Alaniz, 726 F.3d at 619; 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.4). Because the district court’s finding that 

Ibarra-Rodriguez was a leader or organizer of the conspiracy was plausible in 

 Case: 14-41358 Document: 00513438486 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2016
No. 14-41358

3

light of the record as a whole, the district court did not clearly err by applying 

a four-level adjustment based on Ibarra-Rodriguez’s role in the offense. See 

Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d at 764.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-41358 Document: 00513438486 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/24/2016