* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51287

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CAMILO GASPAR CORONA-PLANCAR, also known as Gilberto Vigas Zavala

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6: 07-CR-4-6

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Camilo Gaspar Corona-Plancar (Gaspar) appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 846. He

argues that the district court clearly erred in calculating the amount of drugs

attributable to him for sentencing purposes. Gaspar argues that there was no

reliable evidence that he and a codefendant agreed to undertake joint criminal

activity and thus there was no basis for the district court’s attribution to him of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51287

2

more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. Gaspar asserts that the court erred

in applying United States Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.3 and improperly based

its quantity conclusion on the unforseen conduct of a third party. We review the

district court’s drug quantity calculation for clear error. United States v.

Schorovsky, 202 F.3d 727, 729 (5th Cir. 2000).

Gaspar concedes that he attempted to distribute 329.98 grams of

methamphetamine but claims that he should not be held responsible for the

269.32 grams of methamphetamine distributed by his codefendant. Section

1B1.3 “includes two primary grounds on which to hold defendant accountable for

conduct by others: subsection (a)(1)(B) for jointly undertaken criminal activity

and subsection (a)(1)(A) for ‘all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted,

counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant.’”

United States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1237 (5th Cir. 1994). In the instant case,

Gaspar failed to rebut the finding in the PSR that his codefendant delivered

269.32 grams of methamphetamine for him. Accordingly, it would have been

plausible for the district court to find that the codefendant’s conduct was

“counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by [Gaspar].”

§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(A).

Moreover,there was sufficient evidence from which the district court could

have found that Gaspar personally was responsible for more than 500 grams of

methamphetamine. The facts admitted by Gaspar at rearraignment and elicited

at sentencing established that Gaspar delivered methamphetamine on multiple

instances over the course of the conspiracy in which he admitted he was a

participant. In the instant case, the district court could have inferred that

Gaspar was responsible for more than 500 grams of methamphetamine based on

extrapolation from the number of his deliveries and the amount of

methamphetamine seized from Gaspar during one delivery (i.e., 329.98). See

United States v. Medina, 161 F.3d 867, 876-77 (5th Cir. 1998).
No. 07-51287

3

Finally, the district court was not clearly erroneous in concluding that

Gaspar and his codefendant participated in joint criminal activity and that his

codefendant’s possession of methamphetamine was reasonably foreseeable to

him. The uncontradicted evidence established that Gaspar and his codefendant

were responsible for distributing drugs on behalf of a drug organization that

Gaspar acknowledged was a conspiracy. Furthermore, the evidence suggested

that Gaspar and his codefendant possessed a collusive relationship consonant

with cooperation rather than independence. Thus, it was plausible from the

record as a whole for the district court to find that Gaspar should be held

accountable for the 269.32 grams of methamphetamine that was distributed by

his codefendant. See Burton v. United States, 237 F.3d 490, 500 (5th Cir. 2000).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.