Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed 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- 20521 Su m m ar y C 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. S B A N YM E N D O Z A -R O J A S , a ls o k n o w n a s J o s e L u is M a ld o n a d o , 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. 4: 08- C R

- 64- 1

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Sba ny M e ndo z a- Roj as (M e ndo z a) appe al s t he s e nt e nc e i m po s e d f o l l o w i ng hi s gui l t y pl e a c o nvi c t i o n unde r8 U
. S. C. § 132 4 f o rco ns pi r ac y t o t r ans po r ta nd har bo rund o c um e nt e d a l i e n s f o rc o m m e r c i ala dv ant ag e o rpr i va t e f i nanc i alg ai n. M en doza argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed by app l yi n g a fou r- l evel
en h an cem en tpu rsuan t t o U
. S

. S

. G

. § 2L 1. 1(b) ( 5) ( B ) f or “bran di shi n g” a f

i rearm United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

10, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20521

Mendoz a does conc ede, however, that he was subj ect to the lesser t wo-level 1 enh anc ementu nder U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.1(b)(5)(C) for “possessing” agun duringth e offense. U. S.S. G. § 1B1.1, cm t. n.1( C)(2 0 0 7). 2 2 dur i ng t he o f

fe ns e . M e ndo z a m ai nt ai ns t hatt he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n t he

1 presentence report ( P S R ) di d not show t h at h e “bran di shed ” a w eap on becau se t h ere w as no evidence t h at h e eit h er i n t en ded t o or di d i n facti n t i m i da t e an yon e. H e asser t s t h at t h e evi den ce s h ow ed on l y t h e p o ss ib ili ty t hathe b r and i s he d a f i r e a r m. The i nf o r m at i o n i n t he P SR r e ve al e d t hatM e ndo z a and hi s c o - de fe nda nt L eobard o A yala -D i az (A yala) perf orm ed a staged k i dn ap i n g of a group of
sm uggl ed al i ens w ho w er e a w ar e t h a t M en doz a w as ar m ed dur i ng t he dr am a. On e o f t h e s mu g g l e d a l i e n s , A n t o n i o C r u z T e r c e r o - Ag u i l e r a , r e p o r t e d t h a tt wo veh i cl es s an dw i ch ed the veh i cl e t h at t h e al i en s w ere i n – and t h at an arm ed M e n d o z a a n d A y a la e n te r e d th e a l i e n s ’ v e h ic le a n d a b s c o n d e d w ith th e m . A
s e c o nd a l i e n, Edbi n M ar i n, de s c r i be d ho w M e ndo z a had w o r n a b l ac k m as k a nd had had a g un d ur i ng t he ki dna pi ng. M ar i n f ur t he rs t at e d t hat–a f t e rt he ki dna pi n g – M e ndo z a and Ayal a ac t e d a s g uar ds a tt he a pa r t m e ntw he r e t he
sm u ggl ed ali en s w ere kept. At h i rd sm u ggl ed ali en , Ju a n M a n u e lL i n aresM edi na, s t at ed t hat he di d notf ee lf ree t o l eave t he apar t m entw her e he w as hel d af t erthe ki dnapi ng and t hat M endoz a had par t i c i pat ed i n t he ki dnapi ng. Ayal a ( t he c o - de fe nda nt ) l at e ra dm i t t e d t hathe and M e ndo z a had c o m m i t t e d t he k id n a p in ga n d g u a r d e d th e s m u g g le d a lie n s a t t h e a p a r tm e n t. A tsentenci n g, t h e distr ict court en h an ced M en doza ’ s of fen se l evel pu rsuan tt o G u i del i n e § 2L 1. 1(b) ( 5) ( B ) , w h i ch provides: “ If a dan gerous w eap on (in c lu d in g a fir e a r m ) w a s b r a n d is h e d o r o th e r w is e u s e d ,” th e b a s e le v e l s h o u ld be i ncr eas ed byf

ourl eve l s. The G ui del i nes def i ne “br andi she d” as m aki ng a da nge r o us w e ap o n “ kno w n t o ano t he r pe r s o n, i n o r de rt o i nt i m i da t e t hatpe r s o n, r e ga r dl e s s o f

w he t he rt he w e apon w as di r e c t l y vi s i bl e t o t hatpe r s o n. ” The 2N o. 08- 20521

R. at 87. 3 United States v. Cisneros-Gut ierrez , 5 1 7F .3 d 7 5 1 , 7 6 4( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 4 C f. United States v. Vital , 6 8F .3 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 9( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 5); s e e also Uni t ed Statesv . 5 Fu entes-Jaimes , 30 1 F. App’x 379 , 382 (5th Cir. 200 8) (unpubli shed) (“[Defendant] preserved this issue in district co urt byobje ctin g to the upward adj ustment onth e gro un d s th at his conduct di d not me et the definition of ‘b ran dishe d’ u nder the Guideline s. For this factu al is su e, wer evie w f

orc le ar erro r. ”)

. Cisneros-Gut ierrez , 51 7 F .3d at 7 64. 6Bu t see United States v. Fu entes-Jaimes , 301 F. App’xat38 2 (unpubli shed) (upholdin g 7

– o n virt u ally i d e ntic al f a c t s t o th e o n e s h e r e i n M e n d o z a ’ s c a s e – th e di s trict court’s application of th e b ran dishingenhancement under U. S.S.G. § 2 L 1 .1 ). 3 di st ri ctcourtoverrul ed M en doza ’ s obj ect i on t h at he ha d n otused “ t h e w eap on in a w a y th a t in tim id a te d .” 3 W e r e vi e w t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s i nt e r pr e t at i o n o ra ppl i c at i o n o f t he G u i del i n es d e novo a n d it s fa c t u a l f in d in g s fo rc le a re r r o r . T h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s 4 det er m i nat i on t hat M endoz a br andi she d a f i r e ar m duri ng t he o f

fens e i s a fac t ual f i n di n g, so w e revi ew i t f or cl ear error . I n a f u t i l e ef f ortt o i n crease ou r l evelof 5
s c r ut i ny o ver the d i s t r i c tc o ur t , M e ndo z a ur ge s t hatt he b r and i s hi ng e nhan c e m e ntr e qui r e s a speci f i c i n t en tel em en t
. B u t , assum i n g w i t h o utde c i di ng t hatM e ndo z a i s co r r e c t , o urf o c us m e r e l y be c o m e s w he t he rM e ndo z a had m ad e t h e dan gerous w eap on kn ow n t o t h e al i en s i n order to in tim id a te th e m –s till a fa ctu a l i s s ue . Cons e que nt l y, i f t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f

i ndi ngs a r e pl aus i bl e i n l i ght of t h e rec ord as a w h ol e, t h en t h ere i s no cl ear err or. 6 Al t ho ugh w e a r e una bl e t o l o c at e b i ndi ng aut ho r i t y di r e c t l y ad dr e s s i ng
w hat c o ns t i t ut e s “br and i s he d” und e rG ui de l i ne § 2 L1. 1(b) ( 5) ( B) , w e de t e r m i ne 7

–g iv e n th e to ta lity o f th e cir c u m s ta n c e s s u r r o u n d in gt h is o ffe n s e a n d th e p la in l ang uag e o f

t he G ui de l i ne –t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no tc l e ar l y e r ri n i m po s i ng t he enhancem ent
. I ndeed, t he i nf or m at i on i n t he PS R s how ed t hat M endoz a – w hi l e w e ar i ng a bl ac k m as k a nd d i s pl ay i ng a f i r e ar m – p art i ci pat e d i n a
r oadw ay ki dnapi ng. H e s ubse quent l y i m pri so ned t he ki dnaped al i ens . I tw asN o. 08- 20521

See United States v. Garcia-Mendez , 4 2 0F .3 d 4 5 4 , 4 5 5 -5 6( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 5). 8 See Cisneros-Gut ierrez , 51 7 F .3d at 7 64. 9 4 r e a s o n a b le fo rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t t o in fe rth a t M e n d o z a h a d – i n th e s e v o la tile sit u a ti on s – m a d e h i s w ea p on k n ow n to t h e s m u gg l ed ali en s i n ord er to i n t i mi d a t e t h e m. M en doza al so half

- h eart edl y argu es t h at t h e st atem en t s of t h e sm u ggl ed al i en s f ou n d i n t h e P S R are un rel i able as a m att er of l aw , becau se t h e sm u ggl ed al i e ns w e r e pot e nt i alcr i m i naldef e nda nt s (ba s e d o n t he i ri l l e ga le nt r y i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es )

. W e r evi ew thi s ques t i on defer ent i al l y – f orei t herpl ai n orc l ear erro r. F ir s t, M e n d oz a fa i l ed to raise th i s ar gu m en t i n the distri ct cou rt – t ri ggeri n g pl ai n err or. Secon d, t h e al l eged un rel i abil i t y of t h e sm u ggl ed ali en s’ 8 st atem en t s has to do w i t h cr edi bi l i t y – a fact u alq u est i on t ri ggeri n g cl ear err or. 9 M en doza fai l s – u n der ei t h er s t an da rd of revi ew – t o m eett h e hea vy bu rden of
s ho w i ng t hat t he di s t r i c t c o ur t e r r e d i n r e l yi ng upo n t he s t at e m en t s of t he
sm u ggl ed ali en s. AF F I RMED.