IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40327

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSBALDO NAVARRO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-989-1

Before BENAVIDES, HIGGINSON, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Osbaldo Navarro appeals his sentence upon the revocation of his term of 

supervised release imposed following his conviction for conspiring to transport 

aliens and two counts of transporting aliens. The only question in dispute by 

both parties on appeal is whether the district court erred in finding that 

Navarro committed a “Grade A” violation by possessing controlled substances 

 

* 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

December 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40327 Document: 00514769032 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2018
No. 18-40327

2

with the intent to distribute them. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1), comment. (n.3); 

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). 

Navarro concedes that, in the absence of an objection in the district court, 

plain error review applies. See United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 646-47

(5th Cir. 2010). A district court may revoke a term of supervised release upon 

a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a

condition of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. 

Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 118-19 (5th Cir. 2005). When the sufficiency of the 

evidence in a revocation hearing is challenged on appeal, this court must “view 

the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the 

evidence in a light most favorable to the government.” United States v. AlanizAlaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). The evidence is sufficient if a reasonable trier of fact could have 

reached the district court’s conclusion. Id.

Law enforcement officers received a tip from a reliable confidential 

informant that Navarro would be delivering narcotics. As a result of this tip, 

Navarro was found in possession of a total of about 8 grams of cocaine and 

about 4 grams of heroin, several cell phones, and approximately $612 in cash. 

Based upon the quantity of controlled substances, combined with the presence 

of a large quantity of cash and the confidential informant tip, it is reasonable 

to infer that, more likely than not, Navarro possessed the drugs with the intent 

to distribute. See United States v. Munoz, 957 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir. 1992); 

Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d at 792. Thus, considering the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the government, there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier 

of fact to have found by a preponderance of the evidence that Navarro’s conduct 

amounted to a Grade A violation. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d at 792. As such, the 

 Case: 18-40327 Document: 00514769032 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2018
No. 18-40327

3

district court did not err in applying the Grade A violation policy statement 

sentencing range. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-40327 Document: 00514769032 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/20/2018