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

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10756 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. F R E D E R IC O G O N Z A L E Z , a ls o k n o w n a s V iejo 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 th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 03- C R

- 329- 13

B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Frede r i c o G onzal ez appeal s t he se nt enc e of l i fe i m pri so nm enti m pos ed at
r e s e nt e nc i ng f

o rhi s co nvi c t i o n f

o rco ns pir ac y t o di s t r ibut e a nd p o s s e s s w i t h t he i n t en tt o di st ribu t e co c aine , coc ai n e base, m arij u an a, an d M D M Aan d consp i racy t o t r ans po r ta nd a t t e m ptt o t r ans po r tm o ne t ar y i ns t r um e nt s f r o m i ns i de t he U n i t ed S t ates to outsi de the U n i t ed S t ates. Th i s c ou rtprevi ou sly vacated G o n z a lez ’ s s e n te n ce a n dor d e re dre se n te n cin ginli g h t of Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S

. 2 0 0 (20 0 5 ). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 5, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-10756 Document: 00511101611 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2010N o. 09- 10756

2 G on za lez argu es t h at th e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n app l yi n g a sentence
e n h a n c e me n tf

o rp o s s e s s i o n o f

ad a n g e r o u s we a p o n p u r s u a n tt o U. S

. S

. G. § 2 D 1 .1 (b )(1 ). H e a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t co u r t d id n o t fin d b e y o n d are a s o n a b le dou bt th at h e possessed a f i rearm an d the court l ooked t o pre- B ookers t and ar ds in m a k in gits d e te r m in a tio n . B e c a u s e G o n z a le z w a s re s e n te n c e da fte rth e d e c is io n inB ooker , t her e w as
n o err or i n t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s f i n di n g sentenci n g fact ors by a p repon deran ce of th e e v id e n c e . Se eUni t e d St at e s v . St e v e ns , 4 8 7 F .3d2 3 2 , 2 4 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. F

am bro , 5 2 6 F .3 d8 3 6 , 8 5 1 & n .9 6 (5 th C ir .), cer t
. den i ed , 129 S

. C t
. 625 ( 200 8)

. A dd i t i on al l y, t h e di st ri ct court di d no t loo k to i m proper
s t and ar ds

. Bas e d o n t he t yp e o f f i r e ar m s f

o und at G o nz al e z ’ s r e s i de nc e , t he dr ug pa raph erna l i a al so f ou n d at t h e res i den ce , a n d t h e t est i m on y t h at G on zal ez t r af f i c ked dr ugs f

r om t hi s sa m e r es i denc e, t hed i s t ric tc our t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat G o n z a le z p o s s e s s e d a fir e a r m in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is d r u g -tr a ffic k in go ffe n s e is p la u s ib le inlig h t o f th e re c o r da s aw h o le a n dis n o t c l e a r l ye r r o n e o u s . S ee Un ited S ta tes v . Ca ld w ell , 4 4 8 F .3 d2 8 7 , 2 9 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Mitch ell , 3 1 F .3 d2 7 1 , 2 7 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). G on za l ez also con ten d s th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s d eterm i n a ti on of d ru g q u a n tity und erU

. S. S. G

. § 2D 1. 1 i s er r oneo us be c ause t he r ec or d s upport s a f i ndi ng t hat he w as r e s p o ns ib l e f o r o nly 1 4 5 kil o g r a m s o f c o c a i ne r a t he r t ha n a t l e a s t150 kil ogram s. Th e di st ri ct court shou l d app roxi m ate th e am ou n tof drug s i n volved i n an of fen se w h en t h e am ou n tsei zed does n otref l ectt h e sc al e of

t h e of fen se. S ee§ 2D 1. 1, com m en t
. (n . 12). In m ak i n g t h i s ap proxi m ati on , t h e di st ri ctcourt
m a yco n s id e r a n y e v id e n c e w h ic h h a s “s u ffic ie n t in d ic iao f r e lia b ility .” U .S .S .G § 6 A 1 .3 , co m m e n t.; Un i t ed S t ate s v. Man t h ei , 9 1 3 F .2d 113 0, 113 8 ( 5th C i r. 1990)

. The di st r i c tc our tpr ope r l y appr oxi m at ed the am ountof dr ugs a ttrib u t able t o G on zal ez f rom t h e P resentence R eport an d the t est i m on y of S peci al A gen t A zi z, both of w h i ch are suff

i ci en t l y rel i able. A l t h ou gh t h e exact
n u m b e r s fr o m S p e c ia l A g e n t A z iz ’ s te s tim o n yto ta le d1 4 5 k ilo g r a m s , h is Case: 09-10756 Document: 00511101611 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2010N o. 09- 10756

3 t es t i m ony i ndi c at ed thatG onzal ez w as r es p o ns ib l ef o ragr e a t eram ount
. Spec i al Age ntA zi z e xp l ai ne d thati ndivi dua l s w e r e o bs e rve d m ak i ng s e ve r aldr ug del iveri es t o G o n z al ez’ s r esi den ce. Th ou gh t h e exactqu an t i t i es of t h ese d e liv e r ie s w e r e n o td e t e r m in e db yh is te s t im o n y , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s determ i n ati on t h at th e add i t i on alam ou n tw as m ore th an f ive kil o g ra m s of
c o c a in e w a s p la u s ib le inlig h t o f th e re c o r da s a w h o le a n dt h e r e fo r e n o t c le a r ly
e r r o n e o u s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B et an court , 4 2 2 F .3d2 4 0 , 2 4 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). G o nz al e z a r gue s t hathi s t o t alo f fe ns e l e ve lw as m i s c al c ul at e d b y t he d is tr ic t c o u r t b e c a u s e th e co u r t a p p lie de n h a n c e m e n t s u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 S 1 .1 basedon h i s m on ey l au n deri n g conv ic t i on . Th e rec ord does not supp ort G onzal ez ’ s ar gum ent
. Though t he c our ti ni t i a l l y i m pro per l y s t at ed that G o nz al e z ’ s o f

fe ns e l e ve l w as e nhan c e d unde r § 2S1

. 1, t he r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t hatt he
c our tw as c or r ec t ed and pr ope r l y cal c ul at ed G onzal ez ’ s t ot alof fens e l eve lat44. M ore o v e r, the S u pp l em en tt o t h e P resentence R eport al so properly cal cul ates G o n z a le z ’ s o ffe n s e le v e l. G o n z a l e z co n te n d s th a t h is w ith in -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly
u n reasona bl e. H e argu es t h at hi s c odefenda n t s r eceivedsentences of 30 yea rs o rle s s . B e c a u s e G o n z a le z d o e s n o t s h o w th a t h is co d e fe n d a n ts w e r e s im ila r ly sit u a ted , h e fail s to esta b l i sh th a t h i s sen ten ce i s u n rea son a b l e d u e to adisp a ri ty b e tw e e n h is s e n te n c e a n dh is co d e fe n d a n t s ’ s e n t e n c e s . SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. Ca n d ia , 454 F

. 3d46 8 , 476 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)

. A dd i t i on al l y, t h e di st ri ctcourt
c o n s i d e r e dGo n z a l e z ’ s a r g u m e n t s a n dde t e r m i n e dt h a tt h e fa c t o r s o f 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 55 3( a) di d no t w ar r ant a s e nt e nc e o ut s i de t he g ui de l i ne s r ang e . The r e i s no i ndi c at i on t hatthe di st r i c tcour tabu se d i t s di sc r et i on i n w ei ghi ng t he § 3553( a) fa c to r s o rth a t G o n z a le z ’ s s e n te n c e is s u b s t a n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n a b le

. SeeG al lv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 (2 0 0 7 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Campo s - Maldo nado , 531 F .3 d3 3 7 , 3 3 8 (5 th C ir .), cer t
. den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 3 2 8 (2 0 0 8 ). A c c o r d in g ly , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F IR M E D

. Case: 09-10756 Document: 00511101611 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2010