IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10210

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL BONILLA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-153-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Bonilla contests the sentence imposed for his conviction for 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of 

methamphetamine. Bonilla challenges the district court’s calculation of the 

drug quantity attributable to him for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) and the 

assessment of the enhancements under § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a 

dangerous weapon and § 2D1.1(b)(2) for making a credible threat of violence. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 25, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10210 Document: 00513772884 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2016
No. 16-10210

2

According to Bonilla, the district court committed clear error regarding the 

those rulings because its factual findings supporting the rulings were based on 

unreliable and uncorroborated statements by Erica Ayala, an individual 

involved in methamphetamine transactions with Bonilla.

We review for clear error the district court’s factual findings concerning

the applicable drug quantity under § 2D1.1(c) and the enhancements under 

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) and (2). United States v. Rodriguez-Guerrero, 805 F.3d 192, 195 

(5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005). 

“A factual finding is not clearly erroneous as long as it is plausible in light of 

the record as a whole.” Betancourt, 422 F.3d at 246 (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted).

A district court may determine drug quantities for sentencing purposes 

provided that the calculation is based upon reliable evidence, such as the 

presentence report. United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 831–32 (5th 

Cir. 1998). The defendant has the burden of presenting rebuttal information 

to show that the information set forth in the presentence report is “materially 

untrue, inaccurate or unreliable.” United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 

(5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court may 

extrapolate drug estimates “from any information that has sufficient indicia of 

reliability to support its probable accuracy,” including a law enforcement 

agent’s testimony and uncorroborated hearsay evidence. United States v. 

Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 267 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted); see United States v. Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545, 558 (5th Cir. 1996). 

“Credibility determinations in sentencing hearings are peculiarly within the 

province of the trier-of-fact.” United States v. Sotelo, 97 F.3d 782, 799 (5th Cir. 

1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

 Case: 16-10210 Document: 00513772884 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/25/2016
No. 16-10210

3

We conclude the district court’s determination of the applicable drug 

quantity was plausible in light of the record as a whole. Ayala’s statements 

indicating that Bonilla was involved extensively in methamphetamine 

trafficking were supported by information provided by Bonilla’s girlfriend and 

co-defendant, Kelly James, as well as the testimony of an investigating officer 

at Bonilla’s sentencing hearing. Given the evidence of Bonilla’s considerable 

dealings in methamphetamine, the district court’s estimate of the quantity of 

methamphetamine Bonilla distributed to Ayala is not clearly erroneous.

The district court’s findings that Bonilla possessed a dangerous weapon 

and made a credible threat of violence also are not clearly erroneous. In 

addition to Ayala’s statement that Bonilla always carried a handgun during 

their drug transactions, James indicated that Bonilla sold a firearm to a coconspirator during the conspiracy. Moreover, it was plausible for the district 

court to credit Ayala’s version of the events that led to Bonilla taking 

possession of Ayala’s vehicle, including Ayala’s statements that Bonilla pointed 

a shotgun at her and threatened harm to her if she did not pay a drug debt. 

Bonilla also raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by circuit 

precedent, which is that his rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment 

and to confront and cross-examine witnesses under the Sixth Amendment were 

violated at sentencing because the district court’s findings were made without 

live testimony from out-of-court declarants. Bonilla is correct that this 

argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Beydoun, 469 

F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10210 Document: 00513772884 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/25/2016