Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51004 Su m m ar yC al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. RO BE RT A L VA RA DO D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 7
- CR- 3 2 8 8
- ALL
B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * R o b e r t A lv a r a d o a p p e a ls th e 2 1 0 -m o n t h s e n te n c e im p o s e dfo llo w in gh is gu i l t y pl ea conv i ct i on for conspi racy t o m an u fact u re f ive gram s orm ore of m e th a m p h e ta m in e . A lv a r a d o a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r lye r r e din m ak i ng an upwar d a dj us t m e ntfo rob s t r uc t i o n o f j us t i c e . H e c o nt e nds t hatt he G o ve r nm e ntfail e d t o pr o vi de e vi de nc e t o c o r r o b o r a t eac o nf i de nt i als o ur c e ’ s ( CS) st at em entt hatA lvara d o t hre at ened he rw hen he di sc ove r ed t hats he w as carryi n g el ect roni c m on i t ori n g equ i pm en tdu ri n g a dru g pu rchase. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust25, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 51004

2 For an obs t r uct i on- of

- j ustice e nhan c em ent , t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s fac t ual fin d in g s a r e re v ie w e do n lyfo rcle a re r r o r . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hol m es , 406 F. 3d 3 3 7 , 3 6 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). “Afa c tu a l fin d in gis n o t c le a r lye r r o n e o u s a s lo n ga s it i s p l a u sibl e in li gh t of the reco rdas a w h ole. ” I d. U nderU
. S. S. G
. § 3C 1. 1, a def endant ’ s of

fens e l eve l sho ul d be i ncr eas ed by tw o le v e ls if th e d e fe n d a n t t h r e a te n s , in tim id a te s , o ro th e r w is e u n la w fu lly in flu e n ce s a co -d e fen d a n t d ire ctlyorin d ire ctly
. § 3 C 1 .1, co m m e n t. (n .4(a )). A l t h ou gh t h e G overnm en tw as requir ed to provi de rel i able evi den ce of i n t i m i da t i on , i tw as n ot requ i red t o provi de i n dep en den tcor roborat i n g evi den ce t h at t h e C S w as t h reat en ed byA lvar a d o b e ca u se t h e C S w as a rec ogn i zed c o c o n s p ir a to ro f A lv a r a d o ’ s a n dn o t a n u n id e n tifie din fo r m a n t. S ee § 6 A 1 .3 , p .s ., c o m m e n t; Un i t ed S t ate s v. R ogers , 1 F .3 d . 3 4 1 , 3 4 3 -4 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). It c o u ld a ls o b e in fe r r e dth a t A lv a r a d o ’ s s e iz u r e o f th e b a ga fte rd is c o v e r in git h e ld e le c tr o n ic m o n ito r in ge q u ip m e n t c o n s tit u te da n a c t o f in tim id a tio n , e s p e c ia lly i n l i gh tof

A lvarad o’ s w el lkn ow n reputati on f or vi ol en tbeh avior
. T h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o app l y t h e adj u st m en tf or obst ructi on of j u st i ce w as pl au sibl e i n l i gh tof t h e rec ord a s a w h ol e, an d thu s, di d n ot c o n s tit u te cle a re r r o r . S ee Hol m es, 406 F. 3d at363. T h e s e n t e n c e i s A F F I RMED.