The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the a bbreviated c aption to conform with the * capt io n l is te d ab ov e. T he H on or abl e Ros ema ry S. Po ol er , o r igi nally s che duledto be a m emb er of th e pan el ** hear in g thi s app eal, was un abl e t o p ar ti cip ate . T he ap peal has bee n d ecid ed b y the r emainin g t wo mem ber s of

th e pan el, who ar e inagr eem ent
. See 2d Cir. Local Rule s, Int ernal Operating Procedure E(b ).
1 0 8

- 1 8 4 6

- c r ( L ) , 0 8

- 3 7 5 4

- c r ( C ON) , 0 8

- 4 5 4 5

- c r ( C ON) , 0 8

- 5 4 5 2 0

- c r ( C ON) U ni t ed St at es v. Bren s *
UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER

Ru li ng s b y su m m ar

y or de r do no t ha

ve pr ece de nt ial ef

fe ct . Cit at io n to a su m m ar y o r de r file d on or af ter January 1, 2007, is permit ted and is governed by F ederal Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and thi s court’s Local Rule 32.1 .1. When citing a summ ary order in a documentfiled withthis cour t, a party m ust cite eith er the F ederal Appendi x o r a n e l ectroni c database (with t he notat ion “su mmary order ”). A party cit ing a summ ary ord er mu st serve a copy of it on an y party no t repr esented by counsel. At a stated term

of th e U ni te d S ta tes Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, h eld at the Daniel Pat rick Moynihan Un ited Stat es Courthouse, 500 Pearl St reet, in t he City of New York, o n the 23 day of April, t

wo thousand t en. rd
PR E SE NT: J OS É A. C AB R ANES ,

RI C HA R D C. W ES L EY ,

Circuit Jud ges. **

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x U NI T ED S TATES O F A M ERI CA ,

Appellee ,

v. No s . 08 -1 846 -c r (L ), 08- 375 4- cr (CO N) , 08 -4 545 -c r (CO N) , 08

- 54520-cr(CON)
G UI L L ER MO GARA Y , F R A NC I S C O G A R C IA , G EIT H N ER T T HO RP , J OS E E S COBAR O REJ UELA , als o kno wn as Do ct or Rob les , al s o kno wn as Rob les , al s o kno wn as T abl a, G RECI A E S COBAR , als o kno wn as LaTia, J E SU S T O VAR , al s o kno wn as Chu cho , J ORGE I GNA C I O F I GU ER OA , W EN C ES L A O F I GU ER OA , P ED RO F I GU ERO A B EDOYA , als o kno wn as El I ndio , W I L L I A M F I GU ER OA , als o kno wn as M emo , J O S EPH E S COBAR J R ., C ENI DE T O VAR , als o kno wn as Ceni a, M ANUE L L

LA N O S E S COBAR , L U Z D A R I C O M O RI , J OS E M. E S COBAR , al s o kno wn as J oey , C A R MEN R ODRI GUEZ D E S ALI NAS , L U I S I B AR GUEN , J OHN D OE III , J OS E G UERRERO , A NA M AR T I NEZ , J ANET H E S COBAR ,2 De fe ndant s, A L B ER T O B R EN S , J UL I O G O NG O RA , R AUL A DAMES , G US T A V O F I GU ERO A B EDOYA , als o kno wn as Doctor Meneses , also known a s M eneses, also known as Gordo,

Defenda nts-App ellants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x F OR AP P ELLAN T: J ES S E M. S I EGEL , New Yor k, N Y, fo r de fe ndant -appella nt G us

tav o Fi gu er o a B edo y a. Rob inC. Smith, La

w Of fi ce o f Ro bi n C. Sm ith, Es q. , P .C., B r oo kly n, NY, for defendan t-app ellant Alb erto B rens. FOR APP ELL EES: C AR R I E C AP W ELL , As s is tan t U ni te d S tat es At to r ney , (B ent onJ . Cam pb ell , Unit ed S tat es At to r ney , an d Emily B erger , As s is tan t U ni te d S tat es At to r ney , on the brief ) United States Attorney’s Office for the Ea stern D istr ict of New Yor k, N ew Yo r k, N Y. Appea l from a judgment of the United States Distr ict Court for the Eastern Dis trict of New York (D avi d G . T r ager , Judge

).
UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, AND DECREED th at the j ud gm ent of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t b e AF F IRME D

. Defendants-appella nts Gus tavo Figueroa Bedoya and Albe rto B rens appeal from two judgments of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t. Sp ecif

ically, B r ens app eals fr om th e ju dgm ent of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t d ate d February 27, 2008, c onvicting him of one c ount of conspir acy to import f

ive kilog rams or

more of

coca ine, in viol ation of 21 U.S.C . §§ 96 3 and 960; two counts of conspir acy to distr ibute and possess ion with intent to distr

ibute five kilog rams of

coca ine, in viol ation of 21 U.S.C . §§ 84 6 and 841, and one count of being a fel on in poss ession of a firearm, in viola tion of 18 U.S.C. § § 922 a nd 921; and sentencing him principa lly to a term of 120 months’ impris onment. Bedoya a ppeals from the November 7, 2008 judg ment of the District Court convicting him of one c ount of conspir acy to import five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C . §§ 95 2(a), 960(a)(1), and 96 0(b)(1)(B ); one count of conspiracy to distr ibute and possess ion with intent to distr ibute five kilog rams or

more of

coc ain e, i n v

io lat io n o f 2 1 U. S.C. §§ 84 6, 8 41(a), and841 (b )( 1) (A ); tw o co un ts of

im po r tat io n o f f ive kil ogr ams or

mo r e of coc ain e, i n v

io lat io n o f 2 1 U. S.C. §§ 95 2(a), 960 (a) (1 ), and960 (b )( 1) (B ); andtw o
cou nt s of di s tr ib ut io n an d p os s es s io n wi thin te nt to di s tr ib ut e f ive kil ogr ams or

mo r e of coc ain e, i n vio lat io n o f 2 1 U. S.C. §§ 84 1(a)( 1) and841 (b )( 1) (A ); ands ent enc in g hi m p r

in cip ally t o a t er m o f 2 16 months’ impr

isonment. On appeal, Br ens argues (1) that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to con vic t him of

con s pi r in g t o i mp or t c ocai ne an d ( 2) th at the e vid enc e pr es ent ed at tr ial was in s uf fi cien t t o co nv

ict hi m o f c on s pi r

in g t o dis tr

ib ut e andpo s s es s with i nt ent to di s tr ib ut e co cain e,3

di s tr ib ut io n an d p os s es s io n wi thin te nt to di s tr ib ut e co cain e. B edo ya argue s th at the D is tr ict Cou r t e r r ed ins ent enc in g hi m b ecau s e ( 1) th e Di s tr ict Cou r t i mp r op erly i mp os ed a l eade r s hi p en han cem ent and(2) th e Di s tr ict Cou r t i mp r op erly co ncl ud ed that he w as in eligib le f

or s o- call ed “ s af

et y val ve” r eli ef . We
as s um e the p ar ti es ’ f

amilia r it y with the u nd erlyi ng f

act s andpr oce du r al his to ry of this cas e.

Br ens argues that the evidenc e presented at trial wa s ins ufficient to suppor t his convictions on the drug-related counts. Because “the task of choosing among compe ting, permiss ible inference s is for th e [j ur y and ] n ot fo r th e r evi ewing co ur t, ” United Sta tes v. M cDermott , 245 F.3d 133, 13 7 (2d Cir. 2001),
we ar e r equ

ir ed t o r evi ew the e vid enc e “i n the l igh t m os t f

avo r abl e t o the g ov er nm ent ,” United Sta tes v. Gas ki n , 36 4 F .3d438 , 45 9 (

2dCir . 20 04) and“r es ol

ve all is s ues of

cr edi bilit y infa vo r of th e ju ry’s
ver di ct .” Uni

te d St ate s v . Dr es sn a , 28 7 F .3d170 , 17 7 (

2dCir . 20 02)

. Se e g

en er all y Ja ck so n v. V

ir gi nia , 44 3 U. S. 307 , 31 8- 19 ( 197 9) . At

tr ial , the g ov er nm ent

in tr od uce d ev

id enc e that

coulds up po r t the j ur

y’s ver di ct
. Applying the deferential standard set forth above, we c onclude tha t there was suff icient e vidence to
s up po r t e ach g

uilt y ver di ct challen gedher e and , acc or di ngl y, we af fi r m the j ud gm ent

of th e Di s tr ict C ou rt a ga in st Bre ns. Bedoya, in turn, argues that the District Court err ed in imposing, pursuant to § 3B1.1 of the Unit ed S tat es Sen te nci ng G ui del in es (“ U.S .S. G. ” or

“the G ui del

in es ”) , a l eade r s hi p en han cem ent to hi s sentence bec ause the District Court incorr ectly c alcul ated the a pplica ble range under the Guidelines and faile d t o m ake ad equ ate fi ndin gs to s up po r t s uchan en han cem ent . We r evi ew a s ent enc e f or pr oce du r al ands ub s tan ti

ve r eas on abl ene s s , whichis aki n t o r evi ew u nd er an “ abu s e- of

-dis cr et io n” s tan dar d. See, e.g. , United Sta tes v. Cavera , 55 0 F .3d180 , 19 0 ( 2dCir . 20 08) (e n b anc) ; see also Gall v. Uni ted States, 12 8 S. Ct. 586 , 59 1 (

200 7) ; cf. Sims v. Blot

, 534 F.3d 117, 13 2 (2d Cir. 2008). W hen a de fendant cha llenge s the di stri ctco urt ’s int

er pretat io n of a Guideline s pr ovision, we revie w this interpr etation of the Guid eli nes —j us t as we wo ul d r evi ew the i nt erpr et ati onof any l aw— de novo

. See, e.g. , United Sta tes. v. He rt ular , 562 F.3d 433, 44 9 (2d Cir. 2009). He re, the Distr ict Court made sufficient factual findings to suppor t its impos ition of the leade rs hip enhanc ement, as the District Court “adopt[ed] the report of the Probation Department.” Bedoya App’x 77. The report of the Probation Department report ed facts suff icient to establish that Bedoya w as eligible for the lea dership enhanceme nt. Specifica lly, it reported, among other things, that Bedoya loca ted investors in Colombia who purchased the coc aine, that he coordinated numerous shipments of cocaine to the United States, that the conspiracy c onsis ted of more than five individua ls, and that he directed othe r co-conspir ators. Accordingly, w e conc lude that the Distr ict Court did not err in impos ing the lea dership enhanceme nt. Finally, Bedoy a argue s that the Dis trict Court err ed in conc luding that Bedoya was inelig ible for “s af et y val ve” r eli ef un der U.S .S. G. § 5C1 .2. Un der

th e r elev ant

s ect io ns of th e Unit ed S tat es Cod e, 1 8 U.S .C. § 355 3( f) , an d the G ui del in es , U. S.S .G . § 5 C1.2 , a d ef end ant is in eligib le f

or s af et y val ve r eli ef if he wa s an “organize r, leader, mana ger, or supervis or of others in the off ense, as determined under the

s ent enc in g guid eli nes .” 1 8 U. S.C. § 35 53( f) . Si nce we co ncl ud e that th e Di s tr ict Cou r t didno t e r r

in imposing the leade rs hip enhanc ement, we also conclude that the Distr ict Court did not err in concluding4

th at B edo ya was in eligib le f or s af et y val ve r eli ef . Acc or di ngl

y, we af fi r m the j ud gm ent

of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t ag ain s t B edo ya.
CONCLUSI ON

Fo r th e r eas on s s tat ed ab ov e, we AF F IRM th e ju dgm ent s of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t.

FO R T HE CO URT : Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk