1 

# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10356 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Crystal Zuniga,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 357

- 1

Before **Barksdale, Graves,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Crystal Zuniga plea ded guilty to maintaining a drug

- involved premises , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1). Following a contested sentencing hearing, the court sentenced her to , inter alia , a within

- Sentencing Guidelines term of 121

- months’ imprisonment. Zuniga challenges the court’s application of the two

- level sentencing enhancement under

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 8, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10356 Document: 00515665187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/20202 Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a drug premises. Relying on United States v. John , 309 F.3 d 298, 305

– 06 (5th Cir. 2002), s he contends imposing the enhancement constituted impermissible double

- counting , asserting the act of maintaining a drug premises is already factored into the base offense level for violating 18 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1).
A lthough 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 exi sts, 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).
A district court’s impos ing the Guideline § 2D1.1 (b)(12) maintaining

a
- drug

- premises enhancement is a factual finding reviewed for clear error, United States v. Guzman

- Reyes , 853 F.3d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 2017) ; but , deciding whether the imposition of the maintaining

- a
- drug

- premises enhancement constitutes impermissible double counting is an application of the Guidelines reviewed de novo , see United States v. Jones , 145 F.3d 736, 737 (5th Cir. 1998). “Double counting is proh ibited only if the particular guidelines at issue specifically forbid it.” United States v. Jimenez

- Elvirez , 862 F.3d 527, 541 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Neither Guideline § 2D1.1 nor § 2D1.8 expressly prohibit s doub le counting. See United States v. Gilford , 782 F. App’x 359, 360 (5th Cir. 2019).
**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-10356 Document: 00515665187 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2020