[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 10750 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11

- cr - 20401

- DMM

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

CRISANTO DIEGO TREJOS ORTIZ, a.k.a. Crisanto Diego Trejos

- Ortiz,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________ ___ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (February 20, 2013) Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:2 We sua sponte vacate and reconsider our original opin ion in this matter. We substitute the following opinion for our original opinion. Crisanto Diego Trejos Ortiz appeals his sentence of 180 months of imprisonment, following his pleas of guilty to smuggling goods from the United States, 18 U.S.C. §§ 554, 2, and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, id. § 922(g)(1). Trejos Ortiz appeals the enhancement of his sentence for being a manager of a n organization that illegally export ed component s for firearms and the reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it enhanced Trejos Ortiz’s sentence for his role as a manag er . A defendant is subject to a three

- point increase in his base offense level if he serv ed as “a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(b) (Nov. 2011)

. T he district court could determin e Trejos Ortiz’s role based on the facts in his presentence investigation report. See United States v.
Bennett , 472 F.3d 825, 832 (11th Cir. 2006). Although Trejos Ortiz objected to his classification as a manager, at his sentencing hearing, h e challenge d only the “legal issue” of how his conduct “compar[ed] . . . [to] the other conspirators that were involved and the different roles of all of them.” Trejos Ortiz admitted, by

“ fail [ ing ] to object to [the] allegations of fact in [his presentence report],” United3 States v. Wade , 458 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2006), that he provided currency, shipping info rmation, and storage locations f o r the organization; he rented a garage used to store and package components t o export; and he gave instructions to other members of the organization. Trejos Ortiz also admitted to facts establishing that he had exercis ed “ control over at least one other participant in the criminal activity .” United States v. Jennings , 599 F.3d 1241, 1253 (11 th Cir

. 2010)

. Trejos
Ort iz confessed to federal investigators that he direct ed David Loaiza to retrieve a shipment of 27 receivers and gave Loaiza cash and an automobile to transport th e shipment

. Trejos Ortiz argues that he w as subordinate to Andres Campo, but that does not absolve Trejos Ortiz f o r the logistical support he provided the organization or his role in directing Loaiza to undertake activities that benefit t ed the organization

. See United States v. Jones , 933 F.2d 1541, 1546

– 47 (11th Cir. 1991). The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it s entenced Trejos Ortiz to a term of 1 20 months for his smuggling crime to run consecutively to a term of 60 months for his firearm offense. At the request of the government, the district court varie d upward from Trejos Ortiz’s advisory guideline range of 87 to 108 months . The district court provid e d f ive reasons for its upward variance: (1) Trejos Ortiz’s “actions contributed to and led to the death of cohort Erik
Comesana” or , “[a]t a minimum [,] [ e stablished that ] he was an accessory after the4 fact”; (2) the grouping of Trejos Ortiz’s offenses did not account for hi s illegal possession of two firearms; (3) Trejos Ortiz “was involved . . . [in a sophisticated operation to] ship[] firearms to Colombia, a source country”; (4) he “used his status as a DEA confidential informant . . . [to] stay[] in the country and . . . to commit further crimes”; and ( 5 ) h e had a “history o f drug dealing and arms trafficking and [had] consistently manipulated the justice system.” Trejos Ortiz challenges the finding that he was involved with the murder, but we cannot say th at finding is clearly erroneous in the light of Trejos Ortiz’s admiss ions that he had accompanied Comesana to lawyers’ offices, monitored the status of Comesana’ s cooperation with authorities for Campo, saw Comesana’s dead body, disposed of Comesana’s vehicle, and continued thereafter to participate in the organization.
Se e United States v. Rodriguez De Varon , 175 F.3d 930, 945 (11 th Cir

. 1999)

. The district court reasonably dete rmined that an upward variance w as necessary to address the statutory purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Trejos Ortiz had violated the law repeatedly, twice entering the United States illegally, committed crimes of escalating violence, and flagrantly disregarded the law by feigning cooperation with authorities while attempting to convince third parties to dispose of incriminating evidence. Trejos Ortiz’s s entence is reasonable.
We AFFIRM Trejos Ortiz’s sentence.