IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-20700

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LEONEL GONZALEZ-MENDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-cr-191-5

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:

*

Leonel Gonzalez-Mendoza appeals his 37-month sentence, following his

guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to transport and harbor undocumented

aliens within the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii),

(a)(1)(A)(iii), (a)(1)(B)(i), and (a)(1)(A)(v)(I). He argues, as he did in the district

court, that the district court erred when it increased his offense level by six

levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(B) based on its finding that he was

accountable for transporting or harboring at least 25, but not more than 99,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 22, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-20700 Document: 00511301525 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2010
No. 09-20700

illegal aliens in the United States, and when it increased his offense level by four

levels pursuant to § 2L1.1(b)(5)(B) based on its finding that his codefendants

brandished a firearm during the offense.

After Booker, this court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an

abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Herrera-Garduno, 519 F.3d 526,

529 (5th Cir. 2008). “In performing this review, we ‘first ensure that the district

court committed no significant procedural error’ and ‘then consider the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.” Id. (quoting Gall v. United

States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007)). The district court’s application of the

Sentencing Guidelines is reviewed de novo, while its factual findings are

reviewed for clear error. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764

(5th Cir. 2008).

In the instant case, the Presentence Report (PSR) indicated that (1) 22

illegal aliens were present at the stash house, including Gonzalez-Mendoza and

his four co-defendants; (2) Gonzalez-Mendoza participated in the conspiracy for

at least ten days; (3) “at least one to two loads [of aliens]” comprised of two to ten

aliens each arrived at the stash house every week; (4) three firearms were seized

from the stash house during the security sweep; and (5) several of the smuggled

aliens saw firearms in the smugglers’ possession.

Gonzalez-Mendoza’s objections to the PSR with respect to the

enhancements were insufficient to rebut the information it contained. See

United States v. Lowder, 148 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v.

Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995). In light of the PSR, the trial court did

not clearly err in finding that he harbored or transported at least 25, but fewer

than 99, illegal aliens as it was plausible that three loads of ten aliens had

arrived during the ten days that Gonzalez-Mendoza admittedly participated in

the conspiracy. In addition, the information contained in the PSR establishes

that Gonzalez-Mendoza’s codefendants brandished a firearm—relevant conduct

2

Case: 09-20700 Document: 00511301525 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2010
No. 09-20700

for which he is held responsible. See Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d at 764; United

States v. Williams, 610 F.3d 271, 292 (5th Cir. 2010); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 09-20700 Document: 00511301525 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/22/2010