Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt 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- 41034 Su m m ar y Cal 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. RA F AE L GO NZ AL EZ

- DE L EO N 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 S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 08- C R

- 348- 2
B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * R afaelG on zal ez- D e L e o n app eal s hi s s en t en ce f ol l ow i n g h i s gui l t y- pl ea convic t i on f

or posses si on w i t h i n t en tt o di st rib u te m a rij u an a, i n vi ol ati on of 21 U
. S
. C
. § 841(a) ( 1) an d (b) ( 1) ( C )
. D e L eon argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n s e nt e nc i ng hi m be c aus e i tus e d t he g r o s s w e i ghto f t he m ar ij uana , i nc l udi ng i t s pa c ka gi ng, t o de t e r m i ne t he ap pl i c ab l e ba s e o f fe ns e l e ve l
. D e Le o n c o nt e nds th a t if th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d a p p lie d th e ty p i c a l re d u c tio n fo rp a c k a g in g , h is United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 29, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 41034

2 a d v is o r ys e n te n c in gra n g e m ig h t h a v e b e e n le s s th a n th e s e n te n c e a c t u a lly im p o s e d
. Adi st ri ctcourt ’ s det erm i n ati on of t h e am ou n tof

drug s at t ribu t able t o a d e fe n d a n t fo rs e n te n c in gp u r p o s e s is a fin d in go f fa c t t h a t t h is co u r t g e n e r a lly
r e v ie w s fo rc le a re r r o r . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Posad a-R i os , 158 F
. 3d 832 , 878 ( 5th C i r. 1998). H o w e ve r , Rod r i gue z - D e Le o n di d no tdi s put e i n t he di s t r i c tc o ur tt he dru g qu an t i t y u sed t o cal cul ate hi s base of fen se l evel
. Th u s, pl ai n err or r evi ew a p p lie s . Uni t e d S t at e s v. Sparks , 2 F .3 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). Rodr i gue z - D e Le o n ha s n ots ho w n t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o m m i t t e d a ny e r r o r , pl ai n o ro t he r w i s e , i n de t e r m i ni ng t he dr ug qua nt i t y f o rs e nt e nc i ng p u r p o s e s . R o d r ig u e z -D e L e o n d id n o t p r e s e n t a n y e v id e n c e t o r e fu t e th e P S R ’s f i n di n g t h at he w as responsibl e f or m ore t h an 60 ki l ogram s of m arij u an a. T h ere w as no e vi de nc e i n t he r e c o r d c o nc e r ni ng t he ne tw e i ghto f t he m ar ij uana , a nd R o d r ig u e z -D e L e o n d id n o tp r e s e n ta n yc o m p e t e n te v id e n c e to r e fu t e th e P S R ’s q u a n titya ttrib u tion (e .g ., th e a ctu a l or e stim a te d w e igh t of th e p a ck a g in g). Rodr i gue z - D e Le o n s pe c i f i c al l y fai l e d t o s ho w t hatt he di f fe r en c e b e t w e e n t he gr o s s w e i ghta nd t he ne tw e i ghto f t he dr ugs e xc e e de d 5. 45 ki l o gr am s (i
. e . , t he a m o u n t n e c e s s a r yto a ffe c t h is o ffe n s e le v e l)
. G iven t h e absen ce of contr ary ev i d en ce co n cern i n g th e p rop er d ru g q u a n ti ty, the distri ct cou rt w a s en ti tl ed to m a k e its d r u gq u a n tit yc a lc u la tio n w ith o u t fu r th e rin q u ir y . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v . P u ig -Infa n te , 1 9 F .3d 9 2 9 , 9 4 3 ( 5 t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). Ac c o r d i n g l y , R o d r i g u e z - De L eon ha s fai l ed to est abli sh that t h e di st ri ctcourtcom m i t t ed errorof an y t yp e. S e eid .; Sp ark s , 2 F .3 d a t 5 8 9
. AF F I RMED.