IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50390

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ADAN REYES-RODRIGUEZ, also known as “Papa,” also known as “Senor,” 

also known as Adan Reyes,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-1946-1

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Adan Reyes-Rodriguez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty 

plea conviction of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a 

controlled substance, four counts of possession with intent to distribute a 

controlled substance, two counts of conspiracy to launder monetary 

instruments, and two counts of laundering monetary instruments. For the 

 

* 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 31, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50390 Document: 00514494634 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2018
No. 17-50390

2

first time on appeal, Reyes-Rodriguez argues that the district court improperly 

applied a four-level adjustment based on his role in the offense. He also argues, 

as he did below, that the drug quantity attributable to him was improperly 

calculated.

As Reyes-Rodriguez correctly concedes, we review the district court’s 

application of the four-level role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) 

for plain error because he failed to raise the issue below. See United States v. 

Cabral-Castillo, 35 F.3d 182, 188-89 (5th Cir. 1994). To show plain error, the 

appellant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects 

his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If 

the appellant makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct 

the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

Section 3B1.1(a) provides for a four-level increase to an offense level if 

the defendant is “an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five 

or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” The commentary to the 

applicable money laundering guideline provides that the enhancement must 

be based on the money laundering offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1, comment. 

(n.2(C)).

Reyes-Rodriguez fails to demonstrate any clear or obvious error in the 

imposition of the four-level § 3B1.1(a) adjustment. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. 

Even if this court were to assume that the district court erroneously applied 

the role adjustment based on Reyes-Rodriguez’s role in the drug trafficking 

offense, the error would not affect Reyes-Rodriguez’s substantial rights 

because the record demonstrates that the adjustment was warranted based on 

Reyes-Rodriguez’s role in the money laundering offense. Id.; see also United 

States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, 714 F.3d 306, 314 (5th Cir. 2013).

 Case: 17-50390 Document: 00514494634 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2018
No. 17-50390

3

We review the district court’s determination of drug quantity for clear 

error and will affirm the finding as long as it is “plausible in light of the record 

as a whole.” United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The court may extrapolate 

drug estimates “from any information that has a sufficient indicia of reliability 

to support its probable accuracy,” including the uncorroborated testimony of a 

coconspirator. United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 267 (5th Cir. 2006) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see United States v. Gaytan, 

74 F.3d 545, 558 (5th Cir. 1996).

Reyes-Rodriguez did not present competent rebuttal evidence to refute 

the drug quantity determination set forth in the presentence report. United 

States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, he did not 

carry his burden of demonstrating that the information set forth in the PSR is 

“materially untrue, inaccurate or unreliable.” United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 

586, 619 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Moreover, in light of the admissions made by Reyes-Rodriguez’s coconspirators

in their respective factual bases, the determination that Reyes-Rodriguez was 

accountable for in excess of 90,000 kilograms of marijuana is plausible in light 

of the record as a whole. See Betancourt, 422 F.3d at 246.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-50390 Document: 00514494634 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2018