United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-51060

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jeronimo Alas-Ayala, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CR-533-2

______________________________

Before Southwick, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Appellant Jeronimo Alas-Ayala (“Alas-Ayala”) appeals the district 

court’s sentence. For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM. 

I. Background

On June 22, 2022, the United States Border Patrol (“USBP”) encountered nine individuals, including Alas-Ayala, in the area known to agents 

as High Lonesome Mountain in Culberson County, Texas, near the United 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 7, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-51060 Document: 00516960126 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023
No. 22-51060

2

States border with Mexico. All nine individuals were citizens of Mexico and 

admitted they were in the United States illegally.

During the immigration inspection, agents noticed strap marks on 

their shoulders, indicating they may have been carrying heavy backpacks.

Approximately 250 feet away from where the group was detained, the USBP 

agents found ten burlap backpacks hidden in the brush. The backpacks 

contained bundles of marijuana, weighing a total of 273.82 kilograms. Agents 

transported the group back to the station for processing.

Two members of the group—including a boy named “Luis”—were 

minors and released back to Mexico. The Drug Enforcement Administration 

(“DEA”) agents interviewed the seven remaining men, four of whom 

(including Alas-Ayala) were related to each other. The interviews of AlasAyala and another member of the group, Arturo Gonzalez-Terrazas

(“Gonzalez-Terrazas”), are the most relevant for the purpose of this appeal. 

Alas-Ayala admitted to having carried between 20 to 25 kilograms of 

marijuana, for which he would be paid 40,000 pesos (approximately $2,000)

to bring from Mexico to Odessa, Texas. He claimed that he understood he 

would be smuggling the marijuana into the United States when he accepted 

the job, with the plan to return back to Mexico afterwards. Alas-Ayala 

explained that the group was supposed to walk to I-10, where they would be 

picked up. He also claims that the tenth member of the group, who was never 

apprehended, may have been the guide. The group crossed into the United 

States at Lomas De Arena, on the Mexico side. According to Alas-Ayala, this 

was his first time crossing into the United States.

Gonzalez-Terrazas also spoke to DEA agents. He reported that he 

first met Alas-Ayala three days before the trip. He said that Alas-Ayala told 

him about the “trips” into the United States carrying backpacks filled with 

marijuana. He said that Alas-Ayala gave him the impression that the trip was 

Case: 22-51060 Document: 00516960126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2023
No. 22-51060

3

easy to do and said that it paid well. Gonzalez-Terrazas advised DEA agents 

that Alas-Ayala told him they always take bundles into the United States as a 

job. He asked Alas-Ayala if he could be invited on one of those trips. Three 

days after meeting Alas-Ayala, Gonzalez-Terrazas crossed into the United 

States with the group. He stated that the marijuana bundle he carried 

weighed approximately 25 kilograms and that he was going to be paid 20,000 

pesos (approximately $1,000) for carrying the bundle into the United States. 

All seven men, including Alas-Ayala and his three family members, 

were charged in the Western District of Texas with importing marijuana 

(Count 1) and aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute 

marijuana (Count 2). Alas-Ayala pleaded guilty to Count 2 without a written 

plea agreement, with the understanding that the government would later 

dismiss Count 1. 

Alas-Ayala’s cousin and co-defendant, Jose Manuel Ayala-Alas, 

pleaded not guilty and went to trial. Gonzalez-Terrazas testified at Jose’s trial 

that defendant Alas-Ayala sent “Luis,” a juvenile, to recruit him to 

participate in the marijuana smuggling venture. He testified that he would be 

paid 20,000 pesos. He further testified that Alas-Ayala had instructed him 

not to testify at the trial and to falsely say that “Luis” was the one who had 

recruited him. There is no evidence to suggest that Gonzalez-Terrazas lied 

or perjured himself during his testimony. 

On November 28, 2022, the district court held Alas-Ayala’s

sentencing hearing. Alas-Ayala objected to the following calculations: (1) the 

four-level leadership role adjustment; (2) the two-level enhancement for his 

aggravated role in a drug case; (3) the two-level obstruction of justice 

enhancement; and (4) the failure to award him an acceptance of 

responsibility reduction. Alas-Ayala based a large part of his objections on the 

inaccuracy of the testimony of Gonzalez-Terrazas made during the 

Case: 22-51060 Document: 00516960126 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/07/2023
No. 22-51060

4

investigation and jury trial of Jose. The district court explained that it 

presided over Jose’s trial a month earlier and that, in addition to 

remembering Gonzalez-Terrazas’s testimony that Alas-Ayala recruited him, 

recalled that the probation officer attended the trial and took notes 

throughout the trial. The district court determined that the Presentence 

Investigation Report’s (“PSR”) summary of the testimony and facts were 

consistent with the court’s recollection of the testimony. The district court 

thus overruled Alas-Ayala’s objections. Adopting the guideline calculations 

in the PSR, Alas-Ayala was sentenced within the guideline range to 151 

months imprisonment. This appeal followed. 

II. Standard of Review

Where a defendant preserves a procedural sentencing error by 

objecting before the district court, we review the district court’s application 

of the guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States 

v. Randall, 924 F.3d 790, 795 (5th Cir. 2019). A factual finding that is 

plausible based on the record as a whole is not clearly erroneous. United States 

v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). This is 

especially true when the sentence enhancement is based, at least in part, upon 

the court’s evaluation of witness credibility. See United States v. Nixon, 881 

F.2d 1305, 1310 (5th Cir. 1989). This court defers “to the credibility 

determinations of the district court.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 

F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). 

III. Discussion

A. Aggravating Role Adjustment

Section 3B1.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines provides 

for a four-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader 

of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants.” To qualify for 

an aggravating role adjustment, “the defendant must have been the 

Case: 22-51060 Document: 00516960126 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/07/2023
No. 22-51060

5

organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants.” 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. 

Alas-Ayala argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that 

he recruited Gonzalez-Terrazas. He claims that there are not enough facts to 

support a finding that Alas-Ayala was a “leader” or “organizer” under § 

3B1.1. He argues that the court should not consider other facts supporting 

the aggravating role adjustment since the only ground stated in the PSR was 

the recruitment of Gonzalez-Terrazas.

The district court had presided over the trial of co-defendant Jose 

Manuel Ayala-Alas and recalled Gonzalez-Terrazas’s statement that AlasAyala recruited him.1 The district court recalled that the probation officer sat 

through the co-defendant’s trial, took notes, and reviewed the discovery. In 

_____________________

1 The district court may consider any information which bears “sufficient indicia 

of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 455 (5th 

Cir. 2002) (footnote omitted). “The district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous if 

they are plausible in light of the record reviewed in its entirety.” Id. (footnote omitted). 

The district court judge has wide discretion in the kind of information and source of 

information he considers in determining a sentence. United States v. Ochoa, 659 F.2d 547, 

549 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 (1949)). District courts 

often go outside the record and consider a defendant’s past conduct and activities when 

fashioning a sentencing, see Ochoa, 559 F.2d at 549 (citation omitted), as well as rely on 

evidence, including hearsay evidence, without regard to admissibility under the Federal 

Rules of Evidence which govern a trial. Solis, 299 F.3d at 455 (citing United States v. Huskey, 

137 F.3d 238, 291 (5th Cir. 1998)). And this court has held that district courts may rely on 

testimony given at a co-defendant’s trial when considering a defendant’s sentence. See 

United States v. Hernandez-Ybarra, 654 F. App’x 662, 663 (5th Cir. 2016) (district court 

did not err at sentencing in relying on testimony from a co-defendant’s trial because such 

information was also detailed in the factual basis of the underlying case and the PSR); cf. 

United States v. Garcia, 797 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that a district court must 

provide fair notice before relying on testimony from a separate criminal trial that was not 

contained in the PSR). 

Case: 22-51060 Document: 00516960126 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/07/2023
No. 22-51060

6

the PSR, the probation officer subsequently prepared a summary of the 

information gathered at trial. According to the PSR, Gonzalez-Terrazas 

testified that Alas-Ayala sent Luis to recruit him, Alas-Ayala instructed him 

not to testify, and Alas-Ayala told him to testify that Luis recruited him. The 

probation officer found this testimony compelling because it was under oath 

and there was nothing to suggest that Gonzalez-Terrazas committed perjury.

The district court, having observed Gonzalez-Terrazas’s testimony at trial, 

adopted the probation officer’s response to the PSR objections. 

Most notably, Alas-Ayala did not offer evidence to rebut GonzalezTerrazas’s testimony and does not direct this court to evidence 

demonstrating that it was “materially untrue.” United States v. Solis, 299 

F.3d 420, 455 (5th Cir. 2002) (footnote omitted). Accordingly, the PSR 

provides a “sufficient indicia of reliability” to support the district court’s 

factual finding that Alas-Ayala recruited Gonzalez-Terrazas, especially since 

Alas-Ayala failed to offer rebuttal evidence. United States v. Nava, 624 F.3d 

226, 231 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). 

The district court’s finding that Alas-Ayala recruited Gonzalez-Terrazas is 

plausible in light of the record as a whole and is not clearly erroneous. See 

Zuniga, 720 F.3d at 590; Nixon, 881 F.2d at 1310. 

Alas-Ayala’s argument that the court should not consider the other 

facts supporting the aggravating role adjustment because the only ground 

reflected in the PSR was the recruitment of Gonzalez-Terrazas is misplaced. 

This court “may affirm the district court’s judgment on any basis supported 

by the record.” United States v. Le, 512 F.3d 128, 134 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). The unrebutted facts in the PSR 

describing the offense conduct were ascertained through the investigation by 

law enforcement and immigration agents, which is generally considered 

reliable. See United States v. Fuentes, 775 F.3d 213, 220 (5th Cir. 2014)

(citations omitted). Because the PSR establishes that Alas-Ayala previously 

Case: 22-51060 Document: 00516960126 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/07/2023
No. 22-51060

7

smuggled marijuana across the border, smuggled marijuana as a job, recruited 

Gonzalez-Terrazas to join the venture, instructed Gonzalez-Terrazas not to 

testify, instructed Gonzalez-Terrazas how to testify, and stood to receive a 

larger share of the fruits of the crime than his recruit, the district court’s 

finding that Alas-Ayala was an organizer or leader of one or more participants 

is plausible in light of the record as a whole. See United States v. Caldwell, 448 

F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); United States v. Cooper, 274 

F.3d 230, 247 (5th Cir. 2001); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4. Alas-Ayala has not 

shown that the district court clearly erred by applying the aggravating role 

adjustment. See Zuniga, 720 F.3d at 590. 

B. Enhancement Under § 2D1.1(b)(16)

The guideline for drug trafficking offenses provides for a two-level 

increase to the base offense level if the defendant received an aggravating role 

under § 3B1.1 and the offense involved one or more of a list of factors. 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(16)(A)-(E). In appealing the two-level adjustment under 

§ 2D1.1(b)(16), Alas-Ayala challenges only the element requiring an 

aggravating role adjustment. For the reasons previously discussed, the 

finding that he was an organizer or leader is plausible in light of the record as 

a whole and is not clearly erroneous. Alas-Ayala has not shown clear error in 

the application of the § 2D1.1(b)(16) enhancement. See Randall, 924 F.3d at 

795. 

C. Obstruction of Justice Enhancement

Alas-Ayala next challenges the sentence enhancement for obstruction 

of justice. In the district court, he argued that Gonzalez-Terrazas’s testimony 

was incorrect. On appeal, Alas-Ayala contends that Gonzalez-Terrazas’s 

testimony is internally inconsistent and that encouraging someone not to 

testify does not rise to the level of obstruction of justice. Because he 

challenges the enhancements on grounds different than he asserted in the 

Case: 22-51060 Document: 00516960126 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/07/2023
No. 22-51060

8

district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. MedinaAnicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 643 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). To show plain 

error, Alas-Ayala must establish a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and 

that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009) (citations omitted). If he makes this showing, we should exercise our 

discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, 

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Section 3C1.1 of the Guidelines provides for a two-level enhancement 

if, among other things, “the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or 

attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect 

to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of 

conviction.” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Examples of covered conduct include 

“threatening, intimidating, or otherwise unlawfully influencing a codefendant, witness, or juror, directly or indirectly, or attempting to do so.” 

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. n.4(A). 

Alas-Ayala has abandoned the argument that encouraging his codefendant not to testify is constitutionally protected speech by failing to 

provide any analysis or cite any precedent to support his position. See Yohey 

v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted); Beasley v. 

McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). Additionally, his argument that 

there was no evidence of intent to obstruct justice apart from encouraging his 

co-defendant not to testify is misplaced. It is reasonable to infer that AlasAyala was trying to minimize his own role in the offense by asking GonzalezTerrazas not to implicate him as the recruiter. See United States v. ZamoraSalazar, 860 F.3d 826, 836 (5th Cir. 2017); see also United States v. Guidry, 

960 F.3d 676, 680, 682 (5th Cir. 2020). Alas-Ayala has not shown plain error. 

See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. 

Case: 22-51060 Document: 00516960126 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/07/2023
No. 22-51060

9

D. Acceptance of Responsibility Reduction

The defendant’s offense level is reduced by two levels if he clearly 

demonstrates acceptance of responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). But 

“[c]onduct resulting in an enhancement under § 3C1.1 (Obstructing or 

Impeding the Administration of Justice) ordinarily indicates that the 

defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.” Id. 

§ 3E1.1, cmt. n.4. 

Alas-Ayala argues that the district court erroneously denied him a 

reduction for his acceptance of responsibility because the court erroneously 

determined that he obstructed justice. For the reasons previously discussed, 

the district court did not plainly err by adjusting the offense level for 

obstruction of justice. Alas-Ayala has not shown that the district court’s 

denial of a reduction for the acceptance of responsibility was “without 

foundation.” United States v. Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 

2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-51060 Document: 00516960126 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/07/2023