IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50269

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

MARIO ALANIS ALEMAN,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-511-1

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Alanis Aleman challenges his sentence of, inter alia, 360 months’ 

imprisonment imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess, with 

intent to distribute, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), & 846. He asserts the district court erred by 

using unreliable information to determine the drug quantity used to calculate 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 20, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50269 Document: 00512843446 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2014
No. 14-50269

his base-offense level, and by increasing his offense level for his role as an 

organizer or leader.

Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and 

a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for 

reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must 

still properly calculate the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range for use in 

deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). 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 

factual finding is not clearly erroneous so long as it is plausible in the light of 

the record as a whole. E.g., United States v. Njoku, 737 F.3d 55, 77 (5th Cir. 

2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2319 (2014) (citation omitted). 

Our analysis is limited to the quantity of drugs transported from Dallas, 

Texas, to Austin, Texas, because this is the drug quantity the district court 

assessed in determining Aleman’s base-offense level. The district court also 

relied on the co-conspirators’ statements, reported through an investigating 

officer’s testimony at the sentencing hearing, to find this drug quantity. An 

investigation revealed Aleman and his co-conspirators distributed drugs. The 

co-conspirators, according to the officer, corroborated each other’s statements 

by reporting the same location of the supply of drugs, amount of drugs 

transported per trip, and method of concealment. Aleman’s uncontradicted,

post-arrest statement further corroborated their statements regarding the 

location of Aleman’s supply of drugs. Given this indicia of reliability, 

particularly the consistency and specificity of the co-conspirators’ statements, 

and the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the district court’s drug-quantity 

2

 Case: 14-50269 Document: 00512843446 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2014
No. 14-50269

finding was plausible in the light of the record as a whole and, therefore, not 

clearly erroneous. E.g., Njoku, 737 F.3d at 78.

The district court’s finding that Aleman was an organizer or leader 

pursuant to Guideline § 3B1.1(a) was also plausible in the light of the record 

as a whole and, therefore, not clearly erroneous. See id.; see also United States 

v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 245-46 (5th Cir. 2005). Aleman managed the 

supply of drugs from his source in Dallas, coordinated the delivery of drugs to 

Austin, and supplied drugs to his co-conspirators for distribution. Evidence 

that co-conspirators sold drugs on Aleman’s behalf, and that Aleman paid them

to transport drugs and drug proceeds, substantiates the conclusion that 

Aleman exercised control and authority over his co-conspirators. Additionally, 

evidence demonstrates Aleman received a larger share of the proceeds because 

his co-conspirators sold drugs Aleman supplied on a consignment basis, and 

they returned most of the proceeds to him. Aleman also exercised decisionmaking authority by refusing to work with certain people.

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-50269 Document: 00512843446 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/20/2014