P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50635 Su m m ar y Cal 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. LUI S PAT I NO, J R 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 W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 07- C R
- 226- 1 B ef ore W IE N E R , ST E W A R T , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * F o llo w in gh is co n v ic tio n b yaju r y , D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t L u is P a tin o , J r ., a p p ea l s h i s con victi on an dsen ten ce for con sp i ra cyto po sse ss w i thi n ten t t o di st ribu t e coc ai n e an d p osses si on w ith in t en tt o di st ribu t e coc ai n e. H e rai ses tw o co n te n tio n s o n a p p e a l, o n e a s to h is s e n te n c e a n dth e o th e ra s to h is c o nvic t i o n. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 25, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50635

2 Pat i no c o nt e nds t hatt he di s t r i c tc o u r tc o m m i t t e d c l e are r r o ri n s e nt e nc i ng h i m w h en i t overrul ed hi s obj ect i on t o a t w o- l evel i n crease i n h i s of fen se level t hatw as b as e d o n hi s l e ad i n g rol e i n t he o f fe ns e . The t r i alr e c o r d a nd the pr e s e nt e nc e r e po r t(PSR ) s ho w t hatPat i no f o rba de hi s c o m m o n l aw w i fe a nd c ode fendant , G l or i a R ayos , f r om deal i ng w i t h m al e c ust om er s, t hatR ayos gave t he pr oc ee ds of

hersal es toP at i no, thatP at i no keptR ayos f r om l eavi ng hi m by t h r e a t e n in gto e x p o s e h e ra s afu g it iv e , a n d t h a tP a t in o d e a ltw it h th e c o u p le ’s dr ug s upp l i e r . Thi s e vi de nc e r e nde r s pl aus ibl e t he c o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng t hatPat i no m anaged Rayos and ex er c i se d a l eadi ng oror gan i zi ng r ol e i n t he c r i m i nal c o n d u c t. S ee Un itedS t ate s v. Parker , 1 33 F. 3d3 22 , 3 30 ( 5th Ci r . 1 99 8) . The d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itt e dn o cle a re r r o rins e n te n c in gP a tin o . P ati n o al so c on t en ds t h at th e evi den ce w as i n suff i ci en tt o convi cthi m on eit h er co u n t. P a ti n o d oe s n ot con ten dtha t t h e e v id en ce, i f b eli ev ed , fa i l edto es t abl i sh any el em entof eit herc r i m e. Rathe r , he ar gues t hatt he t es t i m ony w as
“fact u al l y i ns ubs t ant i al . ” Thi s a r gum e nti s m e r e l y an as s e r t i o n t hatt he t es t i m ony of

R ayos an d ot herw i t nes se s w as n otw or t hy of be l i ef be c ause itw as u n corr oborated. I tw as excl u sivel y f or the j u ry to d eci de w h et h er th e w i t n esses w e r e cr e d ib le , a n dth e w itn e s s e s ’cr e d ib ilityis n o t a n i s s u e o n a p p e a l. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Joh n son , 3 8 1 F .3 d5 0 6 , 5 0 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); B rai n i n v. Un itedS t ate s , 317 F . 2d69, 69 ( 5th C i r. 196 3) . A s th e j u ry w as en t i t l ed t o bel i eve t h e w i t n esses , t h e evi den ce w as suf f i ci en t t o al l ow t h e j u ry t o f i n d that t h e governm en tproved a ll th e e le m e n ts o f th e o ffe n s e s b e y o n dare a s o n a b le d o u b t. Uni t e d St at e sv . Kay , 5 1 3 F .3 d4 3 2 , 4 5 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 4 2 (2 0 0 8 ). P a tin o ’ s co n v ic tio n a n ds e n te n c e a r e , ina ll re s p e c ts , AF F I RMED.