United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-50486 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Hipolito Rodriguez-Gutierrez, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:18-CR-758-2 

______________________________ 

Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Hipolito Rodriguez-Gutierrez challenges his within-Guidelines 210-

months’ sentence, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

conspiracy to import more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 963. In doing so, he contends the court wrongly applied a threelevel adjustment under Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.1(b) (applying 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

August 20, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-50486 Document: 71-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024
No. 23-50486 

2 

enhancement for “manager[s] or “supervisor[s]” where conspiracy 

“involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive”), based on 

its finding he was a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy. (Although not 

listed as an issue on appeal, Rodriguez’ brief also states “his sentence is 

unreasonable in light of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)”. His 

brief, however, solely contends the court erred in applying the adjustment. 

Therefore, this substantive-unreasonableness contention, to the extent he 

makes one, is waived. “A party that asserts an argument on appeal, but fails 

to adequately brief it, is deemed to have waived it.” United States v. Scroggins, 

599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); see also Fed. R. App. 

P. 28(a)(7)–(8) (outlining requirements for appellant’s brief).) 

Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, the district 

court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating 

the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 

(2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to 

an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 

564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in 

district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual 

findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 

F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). 

“The determination that a defendant qualifies for an enhancement for 

his role as a manager or supervisor is a factual finding reviewed for clear 

error.” United States v. Nava, 624 F.3d 226, 229 (5th Cir. 2010). For the 

following reasons, the court did not clearly err. 

An adjustment under § 3B1.1 applies if “the defendant either (1) 

exercised control over another participant in the offense, or (2) exercised 

management responsibility over the property, assets, or activities of a 

Case: 23-50486 Document: 71-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2024
No. 23-50486 

3 

criminal organization.” United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 345 (5th Cir. 

2012) (en banc) (citation omitted); see Guideline § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2 (permitting 

sentencing enhancements in these circumstances). Although Rodriguez 

objected to information in the presentence investigation report (PSR), he 

failed to show that it was materially untrue. See United States v. Alaniz, 726 

F.3d 586, 619 (5th Cir. 2013) (explaining defendant bears burden of showing 

PSR’s material falsity). The record showed Rodriguez played a significant 

role in facilitating the concealment and transportation of large quantities of 

cocaine, and he was one of the few co-conspirators present at delivery. Our 

court has affirmed findings of a supervisory or managerial role under similar 

facts. E.g., Delgado, 672 F.3d at 344–45 (affirming adjustment where 

defendant coordinated the transportation and delivery of narcotics). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-50486 Document: 71-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/20/2024