IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41129

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE IGNACIO ACOSTA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-1860

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Ignacio Acosta appeals the 140-month sentence imposed following 

his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five 

kilograms or more of cocaine. He argues that the district court erred by 

applying two, two-level enhancements to his base offense level.

“[The] district court’s interpretation or application of the Sentencing 

Guidelines is reviewed de novo, and its factual findings . . . are reviewed for 

 

* 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

October 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41129 Document: 00513240084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2015
No. 14-41129

2

clear error.” United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 

2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Acosta challenges the district court’s application of the two-level 

enhancement set forth in U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). A defendant qualifies for a twolevel adjustment in offense level if he was an organizer, leader, manager, or 

supervisor in any criminal activity. § 3B1.1(c). The record reflects that Acosta 

hired drivers, negotiated payments for delivery drivers, stored cocaine, and 

coordinated deliveries for a large drug trafficking organization. Acosta’s 

argument that he was the “low man” in the scheme is unavailing as there “can 

also be more than one person who qualifies as a leader or organizer of a 

criminal association or conspiracy.” United States v. Cooper, 274 F.3d 230, 247 

(5th Cir. 2001). The district court’s finding that Acosta acted as a coordinator 

or manager of a criminal activity is plausible in light of the record. See United 

States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 344 (5th Cir. 2012). Thus, the district court 

did not clearly err by assessing an aggravating role enhancement under 

§ 3B1.1(c). United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 619 (5th Cir. 2013).

The district court also imposed a two-level enhancement pursuant to 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), based on a determination that Acosta maintained a 

premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled 

substance. Acosta argues that the premises, which was owned by his father,

was primarily used as his residence and that the presence of drugs or drug 

trafficking activity was incidental to its primary use. However, the district 

court’s finding that Acosta maintained the premises for the purposes of 

distributing a controlled substance was plausible in light of the record. See 

Alaniz, 726 F.3d at 618; United States v. Morgan, 117 F.3d 849, 857 (5th Cir. 

1997). Thus, the district court did not err by applying the enhancement. See 

Alaniz, 726 F.3d at 618.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-41129 Document: 00513240084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2015