### 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not p recedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. 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: 10/21/2015No. 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 two

level adjustment in offense level if he was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity. § 3B1.1(c). The record refle cts that Acosta hired drivers, negotiated payments for delivery drivers, stored cocaine, and
coordinated deliveries for a large drug trafficking organization

. Acosta’s

a rgument 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
crimi nal associa tion 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 U nited States v. Delgado , 672 F.3 d 320, 344 (5th Cir. 2012) . T hus, the district court did not clearly err by assessing an aggravating ro le enhancement under § 3B1.1(c). United States v. Alaniz , 726 F.3d 586, 61 9 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court also imposed a two

- level enhancement pu rsuant 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 u sed as hi s 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 maintain ed the premises for the purposes of distributing a controlled substance w as plausible in l ight 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